Standing Committee E

[Frank Cook in the Chair]

Clause 98

The Office for Standards in Education,Children’s Services and Skills

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 265, in clause 98, page 74, line 11, leave out ‘The Office' and insert ‘Ofsted'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 266, in clause 98, page 74, line 12, leave out ‘The Office' and insert ‘Ofsted'.
No. 267, in clause 98, page 74, line 13, leave out ‘the Office' and insert ‘Ofsted'.

Nick Gibb: The amendments are purely probing. Until now, Ofsted has been known in law as the Office of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Schools in England. The Bill alters that by establishing a separate body corporate, of which the chief inspector will be a member.
The problem is that the new body is to be known as the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills, and the mnemonic for that is “off-sex”. Do the Government wish it to be known as that? The purpose of the amendments is to probe how the new body is to be known.

Sarah Teather: Far be it from me to be in favour of “off-sex”, but it is a good idea to rename the body and streamline the inspectorate. Many teachers have felt that the burden of Ofsted, and the fear that it would come to their schools, made it difficult to develop any constructive relationship. I hope that a new, renamed and streamlined inspectorate will enable a more constructive working relationship. I suspect that the Government will have to change the acronym, but I am very much in favour of renaming and streamlining.

Phil Hope: The amendments, which are intended to probe, would change the statutory abbreviation used in the Bill. I hope that they will not be agreed to, but interestingly, if they were, they would introduce the first reference to “Ofsted” in primary legislation.
However, we have chosen the title of Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills to reflect exactly what the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) said. We did not want to use a statutory shorthand and entitle it “Ofsted” in the Bill. However, we are aware of the need for a general brand name by which the office will be known, and do not want to suggest that changing the name will mean any less focus on schools and their importance to the organisation’s role.
We will use “Ofsted” as the brand for the organisation. Although it will have a longer name to encompass its new responsibilities, the organisation will be known popularly as “Ofsted”, as it is now. We do not want to put that into statute, but it is the branding that we shall encourage in future.
Ofsted is one of the most accepted and recognisable of all our public service inspectorates; for that reason, I am happy to confirm that we are not suggesting any change to its branding. I hope that, with that reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful for that assurance. The Bill states that the new body corporate is to be known as “the Office”, which sounds like where David Brent works. However, with the Government’s assurance that the office will be known as “Ofsted”, and given that that is the broad direction of our amendments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 99

Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 519, in clause 99, page 74, line 19, after ‘Office', insert
‘and an HMI as defined by section 100(1) and (2)'.
The clause allows for the appointment of Her Majesty’ chief inspector of education, children’s services and skills. The chief inspector is to be appointed by Her Majesty by Order in Council for a renewable five-year term. The amendment would ensure that the chief inspector is an HMI—Her Majesty’s inspector. That would ensure that he had a background in inspection when he was appointed. If the Government are unable to accept the amendment, will the Under-Secretary explain what he regards as the minimum qualifications necessary to become the chief inspector?
Amendment No. 520, which was not selected, was intended to correct the drafting of clause 99(9). I shall not speak to that amendment, but I will address the matter of clause 99(9) in a clause stand part debate, and ask whether it is proper drafting to begin a sentence—

Frank Cook: Order. It would be quite out of order to discuss that on this amendment. The opportunity will come later.

Nick Gibb: I shall leave the issue of amendment No. 519 for the Under-Secretary to address.

Phil Hope: I can understand the hon. Gentleman wishing to clarify the type of person whom we might expect to take the post of chief inspector. Interestingly, being an HMI has never been a prerequisite of holding the office of chief inspector. Lord Sutherland, the first Ofsted chief inspector, was not one of Her Majesty’s inspectors; neither was Chris Woodhead nor, more recently, David Bell. What matters is that the chief inspector has the necessary skills and knowledge to discharge the responsibilities of the office. Experience has shown that such attributes are not confined to those with HMI status. Heading up the inspectorate requires strong leadership, political awareness, sound judgment, strategic vision and the ability to represent the work of Ofsted to Parliament, the public and the media and to run a non-ministerial Government Department in accordance with expectations of such a public office.
I understand why the hon. Gentleman tabled the amendment, but to limit appointments to candidates who are inspectors would be a move away from a full, transparent and open competition with selection on merit to a more limited competition with a severely restricted pool of applicants for what we all agree is a key position. In future, HMIs will come from an education, skills or social care background. Any HMI who can demonstrate the experience, skills and competence for the office of chief inspector will be given the opportunity to apply for the post, but in competition with other suitable applicants. On the basis of the evidence and arguments that I have put, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb: I listened carefully to what the Under-Secretary said. Given the effectiveness of the chief inspectors whom he listed, who were not qualified HMIs, in their role as leaders of Ofsted, his point is valid. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Gibb: I would like the Under-Secretary to address clause 99(9), which begins:
“But any person holding that office”.
That appears to be sloppy drafting, and I wonder whether it can be addressed.

Phil Hope: We discussed grammar and morphology in earlier clauses. It could be argued whether we should start a subsection with the word “But”. It is like starting a sentence with the word “And,” with a capital A for emphasis, is it not? There may be a question of grammar, but the clause achieves the outcomes that we want it to achieve. Although I accept that the hon. Gentleman may wish to push the point about a sensible sentence structure—we could get into parsing and everything else—as long as the clause achieves what it is set out to achieve, we should leave well alone.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 100 and 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11

The Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills

Phil Hope: I beg to move amendment No. 467, in schedule 11, page 196, line 29, at end insert
‘, subject to the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service'.
This amendment amends schedule 11 to require that the chief inspector is responsible, on behalf of the office, for setting staff conditions of service, but that he does so
“subject to the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service.”
That is a standard provision and, in practice, the Minister for the Civil Service will authorise the chief inspector to exercise the power without the need for ministerial approval. It therefore does not in any way compromise the operational independence of the chief inspector which we have been careful to protect throughout this Bill, in particular in setting out the separate functions of the chief inspector and the office in chapter 1 of part 8.

Nick Gibb: As the Minister has said, the amendment makes the conditions of service of members of Ofsted subject to the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service. Why should that be so, when the Secretary of State determines the terms of appointment in the case of the chief inspector, and the chief inspector determines the terms of appointment of the HMI without prime ministerial approval? Secondly, the office is to have five to 10 other members, plus a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State, but the chief inspector and HMI is inspected by the Queen in Council. Will the Under-Secretary explain why there are all these different arrangements?

Phil Hope: This is a standard provision. In order to do his job the chief inspector needs to appoint people. So that he does in a way that is congruent with the way that things have been done in the past, we need to insert this amendment to ensure that he can carry out his functions, including the appointment of staff. If we did not do this we would find ourselves in constitutional difficulty. It is a technical change. There is no change to the status and influence that the Government have over the appointments that he makes. It is a mechanism for delegating authority and responsibilities.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 12

The Chief Inspector and other inspectors etc.

Phil Hope: I beg to move amendment No. 468, in schedule 12, page 201, line 17, at end insert
‘, or otherwise having effect in connection with any such power of entry'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 469 to 484, 486 to 499 and 501 and 502.

Phil Hope: I will not take up hon. Members’ time by explaining each of this substantial list of amendments. Given that they are almost entirely consequential on establishing the chief inspector of education, children’s services and skills to cover a new, expanded remit, I propose to provide just a flavour of them. A number of amendments update legislation to reflect the transfer of remit to the “new” chief inspector. Those include amendments Nos. 478 and 479.
Amendment No. 481 reflects the abolition of the adult learning inspectorate and transfer of inspection remit to the chief inspector. A number of other amendments make technical changes to tidy up part 8. Included in this is amendment No. 488 which reflects a change to the current chief inspector’s powers made by the Childcare Bill. Others tidy up existing legislation concerning the chief inspector’s current legislation, such as removal, through amendment No. 485, of legislation covering publication of inspection reports which is no longer needed, covered by general provisions for the new chief inspector. Although it is a long list, the amendments are entirely technical in nature and I hope that the Committee will approve them.

Nick Gibb: I agree with the Under-Secretary that the proposals are mostly consequential and relate largely to references to the chief inspector and the inspection bodies, but there are a few points that I should like to mention. First, amendment Nos. 471 and 472 both seem to be examples of amendments that remove powers from the chief inspector—in the case of amendment No. 471 the relevant Act is the Education and Training Act 1973, and in the case of Amendment No. 472 it is the Children Act 1989. The amendments seem to remove the chief inspector’s power to offer advice to the Secretary of State on the matters which they cover. Is that because the Bill transfers the advice functions to the chief inspector, or is the Minister consciously attempting to remove those powers?
Secondly, I am concerned about amendment No. 469, which seeks to leave out paragraph 11(4) of schedule 12. That provision says:
“An additional inspector acting within the authority conferred on him by the Chief Inspector has all the powers of an HMI.”
It would allow the chief inspector to enter into arrangements with other people to assist him with his functions, including arrangements with inspection service providers who can provide people to carry out inspections on the chief inspector’s behalf. Sub-paragraph (4) gives such additional inspectors the same powers as an HMI, but removing the sub-paragraph will remove those powers. Will that not stifle the effectiveness of the additional inspectors, especially when they are not supervised by an HMI?

Phil Hope: I shall take the latter point first. The amendment is a tidying-up amendment. Sub-paragraph (4) is not necessary as HMI no longer has any inherent powers; school inspection powers and responsibilities are vested instead in the chief inspector. For example, section 5 of the Education Act 2005 requires the chief inspector to inspect schools on the basis of a prescribed cycle—there will be an amendment concerning that later. In fulfilling his duty, the chief inspector delegates the carrying out of inspections to HMI or to additional inspectors. There is no question of removing that ability; the powers are routed through the chief inspector.
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, clause 104 contains the general reporting duties of the chief inspector. The report can be made by means of any party he chooses, and the extra provision is not needed because clause 104 deals with the point.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 469, in schedule 12, page 201, line 43, leave out sub-paragraph (4).—[Phil Hope.]

Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 102

Functions of the Office

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Gibb: The role of the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills is to determine strategic priorities for the chief inspector and to ensure that they are carried out effectively. Under the clause, the Secretary of State can assign additional functions to the office in connection with the chief inspector’s function. Will the Minister indicate what strategic targets he envisages the office will set? Does he feel that the present arrangements lack strategic direction?

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the new functions and structures that we are putting in place. The office will determine strategic priorities and set strategic objectives and targets for the chief inspector. The clause also places a duty on the office to ensure that the chief inspector’s functions are carried out efficiently and effectively. That is important: we believe that the split of functions between the office and the chief inspector will result in a more modern, more accountable system of governance, providing the office with the ability to hold the chief inspector to account for the performance of his functions.
There was widespread agreement from respondents to our consultation document “A single inspectorate for children and learners” that Ofsted’s governance should be modernised. The proposals to move to a non-executive chair and board were seen by respondents as a sensible development in good governance and a useful way to ensure that the chief inspector was held to account. An effective non-executive board of directors is a key component of successful corporate governance, and the system that we are introducing adheres to the principles of good governance that are used in both the public and private sectors, where oversight and accountability are key characteristics of good governance. It is not my job today to spell out what that strategic direction should be; that is, obviously, a matter for the office. That is why we have created this new governance structure.
I say the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) that I am not here this afternoon to spell out those strategic directions. However, I should like to make it clear, in concluding my description of the new structure, that all the respondents to our consultation made it clear that the continued independence of the chief inspector should remain sacrosanct. That is important—the chief inspector’s ability to make clear, authoritative and robust judgments, free from interference or favour, was seen as essential. Accordingly, neither this nor any other clause in the Bill will do anything to change that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 103

Performance of Office’s functions

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 521, in clause 103, page 76, line 9, leave out ‘encouraging' and insert ‘delivering'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 522, in clause 103, page 76, line 9, at end insert—
‘(za) higher standards of education in schools,'.
Amendment No. 523, in clause 103, page 76, line 41, at end insert—
‘(d) “user-focused”, in relation to each of the activities, has such meaning as shall be prescribed in regulations.'.
Amendment No. 524, in clause 104, page 77, line 16, at end insert—
‘(za) the standards of education in schools,'.
Amendment No. 525, in clause 105, page 78, line 8, leave out ‘encouraging' and insert ‘delivering'.
Amendment No. 526, in clause 105, page 78, line 8, at end insert—
‘(za) the standards of education in schools,'.
Amendment No. 529, in clause 107, page 79, line 5, at end insert—
‘(2A) The annual report shall include a statement on—
(a) standards of education in schools,
(b) GCSE results,
(c) ‘A' level results,
(d) standards of literacy and numeracy, and
(e) international comparison of standards of education in other OECD countries.'.
New clause 57—The Schools Director—
‘(1) One of the persons appointed to the staff of the Office under paragraph 6 of Schedule 11 is to be appointed as Schools Director.
(2) The Schools Director is to have such functions in relation to the performance by the Chief Inspector of functions within subsection (3) as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(3) The following functions of the Chief Inspector are functions within this subsection—
(a) his functions under Chapter 1 of the Education Act 2005 (c. 18) (school inspectors and school inspections: England);
(b) his functions under Part 4 of this Act (schools causing concern: England).'.

Nick Gibb: The amendment would replace the word “encouraging” with “delivering”. We feel that “encouraging” is a weak word that does not explicitly focus on delivery of those goals. That is particularly the case with amendment No. 525, which would change the same wording with regard to the chief inspector’s functions. Amendment No. 522 would introduce a new function of the office, encouraging
“higher standards of education in schools”.
Amendment No. 526 would place a similar requirement on the chief inspector, and amendment No. 524 would place a duty on the chief inspector to keep the Secretary of State informed about the standards of education in schools. Those amendments are motivated by the fact that there is very little in this part of the Bill that directly addresses that issue. We feel that school standards should be one of the principal focuses of the office, or Ofsted, and that that should be reflected in the Bill.
Amendment No. 523 provides that the definition of “user-focused” will be defined in regulations. It is a probing amendment, intended to find out what the Government mean when they use the words “user-focused”, as in clause 103(1), which says:
“The Office is to perform its functions for the general purposes of encouraging...
(b) the carrying on of such activities as user-focused activities.”
That phrase is a poorly defined concept. It is management jargon that is bandied about in many fields of modern society. The Audit Commission has produced a briefing for councils entitled “User focus and citizen engagement”. The commission sees “user focus” in these terms:
“Developing an approach that is more centred on service users is not just a regulatory obligation. It is also part of good management and providing high-quality services. Consulting and involving service users, and finding out what the general public want from their local services, can help councils to carry out their work more efficiently and effectively.”
It goes on to identify five factors for success in user focus: commitment to user focus; clarity of purpose; understanding communities; communicating appropriately; and delivering change. It is clear that there will be a diverse range of views on the nature of inspection. For example, there has been a great deal of concern about the new Ofsted inspection regime that came in after the 2005 Act. Although the new regime was supposed to be a light touch, it has in fact placed considerable burdens on schools through the self-evaluation process, leading to less time being spent examining what happens in schools and more analysing statistics. For instance, the July 2005 Ofsted document “Conducting the inspection” states that inspecting standards and progress at a school is primarily
“based upon the most recent information in the PANDA”—
that is, performance and assessment—
“report comparing the school’s results against all schools nationally”.
In particular, it draws inspectors’ attention to
“the performance of different groups of learners”.
Even the inspection of teaching is based primarily on outcomes, the document noting that
“it is only in smaller schools that it is likely that all or most of the teachers will be observed”.
The National Association of Head Teachers has also expressed concern over post-inspection letters sent to primary school pupils which identify poor teachers and, it believes, undermine discipline in the school by doing so. Liz Paver, an NAHT council member, said that “strike action” was justifiable over that issue. While we on these Benches would not agree, a motion at its latest conference stated:
“At best, these letters are patronising, condescending and supercilious”,
going on to say:
“at worst, the letters may expose and humiliate some teachers, while misrepresenting good individual teachers with blanket criticisms of the school”.
I have one such example from my own constituency. It is for a secondary school, not a primary, but it says:
“Dear Students,
My colleagues and I greatly enjoyed inspecting your school last week. Many of you told us how the good relationships between you and the staff meant that you really enjoyed school and felt safe there. A large number of your parents/carers agree with you...
To make your college even better, we have asked the staff to improve two main things: raise the achievement, particularly of boys, in years 10 and 11. You can help staff improve this for all students by asking for more help and clearer guidance from the teacher when you do not know what you need to do to improve your work”
and
“further improve the quality of teaching by harnessing and spreading the skills of the best teachers”.
What concerns the profession are sentences such as the last one in that Ofsted report.
It is important that the inspection process has the confidence and support of all users of the educational system. Meanwhile, it is necessary to prove that providing user focus will not sacrifice the integrity and rigour of the inspections process. We can see that the recent Ofsted inspections framework, although intended to reduce burdens on teaching staff, has largely failed to deliver that. I do not believe that putting a phrase as vague as “user-focused” into legislation will assist that.
Amendment No. 529 concerns the content of the annual report made by the chief inspector, ensuring that the report focuses on key educational issues in addition to any other matters on which he wishes to report. Specifically, the amendment asks him to focus on the standards of education in schools—on GCSE and A-level results, standards of literacy and numeracy and OECD comparative statistics.

Annette Brooke: I realise that it is difficult to be totally inclusive, but I have always found the section on special educational needs rather important in the annual report. Should that not also be included?

Nick Gibb: I do not believe I said it should not be, so I do not disagree with what the hon. Lady says. The amendment does not impose an undue burden on the chief inspector, but ensures that his principal focus is on educational standards, whatever the specialism of the school. We also feel it necessary for the chief inspector to demonstrate annually what progress Ofsted has made in encouraging these ends.
International comparison is particularly important, as the English educational system does not exist in a vacuum. In the emerging globalised economy, jobs will go to those who have the best knowledge and skills. If our economic competitors are teaching their children more effectively, that necessarily raises the bar for our own schools. It is disappointing and unfortunate, then, that England has failed to participate adequately in the most recent Program for International Student Assessment study, where England—and, by extension, the UK—was explicitly excluded from the statistics because ours were regarded as unreliable.
Finally, new clause 57 ensures that one of the staff of Ofsted is to be a schools director, who will be responsible for functions given to him by the Secretary of State related to the chief inspector’s functions on school inspection and schools causing concern. Given the much wider remit of the inspection body, we believe that there should be a director with specific responsibility for education in schools. The chief inspector will not necessarily be able to give these issues his full attention so the post would also act as a safeguard if a chief inspector were not appointed from a school inspection background, although I understand the point that the Under-Secretary was making. We believe that a schools director would ensure that there is always an individual at senior level who has school inspection experience.

Sarah Teather: I am sympathetic to some of the points that have been raised by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. Including high standards somewhere in the clause is no bad thing. However, amendment No. 525 would fundamentally change the relationship of the office to schools. The office is not commissioning or providing education so it is difficult to see how it can deliver high standards. To change the word “encouraging” to “delivering” will change that relationship from one which is about providing advice, support and independent assessment—information to parents and other interested stakeholders—to one which involved providing education. I can see that there may be another variety of words that could be used—perhaps “promote”—but that would be semantics. Changing “encouraging” to “delivering” would fundamentally change the meaning of this particular part of the Bill.

Phil Hope: I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 521 and 525, which seek to change the general purpose to a more active role—or so it would appear from the contribution of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton—in “delivering” the changes to services.
I will explain. The office and the chief inspector have a general purpose with regard to services within the chief inspector’s remit of encouraging improvement, user focus—I will come to that in a moment—and value for money. We believe that “encouraging” is the right focus and the right level of activity. This idea of establishing a general purpose for the new Ofsted is strongly supported by all our respondents to the consultation on this single inspectorate. We certainly want to send a clear signal to the new Ofsted that the Government want inspection and regulation delivered, so to embed the principles of encouraging improvement, user focus and cost-efficiency.
No one here would deny that Ofsted has had a huge impact on the education system—the way it goes about its business, its reputation and professionalism and how it actively encourages those outcomes. However, the hon. Member for Brent, East is right—Ofsted cannot, of itself, deliver these improvements. That is not its task; it is an inspection body, not a delivery body in those terms. We understand the desire of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to find a way of raising the energy level of Ofsted, if I may put it that way. The amendment does not achieve that. In fact, it is at odds with the general purpose of Ofsted, but the point is well made that Ofsted plays an important role in the education system, and we want it to carry on doing so.
In amendments Nos. 522, 524 and 526, I clearly see that the hon. Gentleman is trying to secure a specific mention of higher standards for schools in the functions of the office and the chief inspector and to seek reassurance that Ofsted will continue to help drive up standards in schools. I can offer that reassurance fundamentally. Yes, that is what the Office for Standards in Education—the clue is in the title—Children’s Services and Skills sets out to do. The Government are also putting in place a non-executive board and chair with a duty on the board to have regard to the needs of users. This offers further evidence of our commitment to modernise Ofsted governance to reflect this expanding remit as well as its current responsibilities. I hope that hon. Members will be sufficiently reassured by these words that our commitment to higher standards in schools is absolute, and on that basis will not press these amendments.
Amendment No. 523 states that the term “user-focused” would have
“such meaning as shall be prescribed in regulations.”
I am slightly disappointed by the hon. Gentleman, because it is a fairly well accepted part of modern management approaches, not just in the public sector but in the private sector, that one should focus on the needs of the users—or, as the private sector might call them, customers. That is a pretty standard part of how any organisation is run.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the clause is not irrelevant management jargon; it is real and important. Clause 105 defines the general purpose of the office, which includes the encouragement of a user focus in the activities within the chief inspector’s remit. That means that in setting the strategic direction of the new Ofsted, and subsequently holding the chief inspector to account, we send a clear signal to the office that the views of users matter and should be at the heart of what it does. Likewise, when the chief inspector is conducting his or her inspections, the principle of encouraging a user focus should be at the core of how he or she works.
In essence, a user focus means that services reflect the needs of those receiving them, be they children, young people, parents, adult learners or employers. In practice, the views of users are a major source of evidence for inspections. Those views might be learned through speaking to children in children’s homes or seeking the views of parents when inspecting schools. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not subscribe to the traditional Tory roots of his party and those of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), and I hope that he will join with us in a modern approach to running organisations, seeking to ensure that bodies such as Ofsted fully take into account the needs and views of users.

Sarah Teather: I meant to mention when I spoke earlier that one of the slightly odd things about the amendment is that it does not include any measure of vocational skills.

Phil Hope: Indeed. Perhaps we can be charitable to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton; I am sure that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) would not allow him in any way to decry the need for and importance of vocational skills and standards. I am sure that it was an oversight in the amendment, which I hope we will not accept, rather than any downgrading of the importance that the Conservative party gives to that part of the education system. However, the hon. Lady is right to point out the fact that, in drawing up a list of this kind, one can sometimes get oneself into difficulties.
Amendment No. 529 would require the chief inspector, in making his annual report, to include a statement on standards of education in schools and on GCSEs and A-levels and so on. Annual reports are made independently of Government. I think that every hon. Member will know that they attract a significant amount of attention and have not always made comfortable reading. That was certainly the case in previous years under former Administrations, when the reports had a fair impact. I am pleased to say that the reports show continuous improvement through measures for reform and investment in the education system, but they still make difficult reading at times and create challenges for us. They make a vital contribution to the debate about how to raise standards and improve services for children and learners of all ages.
As it does now, the annual report will cover all services in the chief inspector’s new remit. We do not list the specific subjects to be included in the report, not just because of the example that the hon. Member for Brent, East, gave but because we believe that it is for the professional judgment of the chief inspector to determine his own annual report. The principle of the professional independence of the chief inspector underpins the establishment of the new Ofsted. I hope that I have not been too harsh to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and that, having heard our clarification, he will withdraw his amendments.
New clause 57 is designed to create a separate schools directorate within the new Ofsted. We cannot accept the new clause, because we do not want to create a federation of inspectorates within Ofsted that would lack accountability and coherence. That is not something that the Government, and indeed those whom we have consulted, want to see; it would fracture the chief inspector’s remit. To have other posts within the new Ofsted with specific statutory responsibilities for schools would undermine the principle of a single chief inspector being accountable for all inspection judgments. We have ensured that the chief inspector’s ability to make such judgments free from interference is maintained. Our belief is that providing in legislation for directors with specific statutory responsibilities to inspect provision would dilute this ability—the ability of the chief inspector to be accountable for all the inspection judgments.
I have to add that the consultation process clearly demonstrated to us the need to harness the collective expertise of the various inspection bodies within the new Ofsted. If it helps the hon. Gentleman, I can give him the firm reassurance that there will not be a drive for uniformity in creating the new organisation. Different sectors have different needs—they require different approaches. That will remain the case.
I want to stress that our strategy for raising standards in schools is under no threat from the new Ofsted. Ofsted’s record on schools speaks for itself. We see no reason to jeopardise that. Having heard those comments and clarifications, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel free to withdraw his amendments.
I want to pick up a couple of points. First, we think that pupils getting involved in inspection is right. That they should receive some sort of feedback is right, which comes back to the earlier point about users in the system making a contribution and finding out what is going on. That pupils can see the full report is right. Inevitably, the version that the pupils get is going to be condensed and in language accessible to them. As we see our education system develop, engaging pupils in this way—in a dialogue, with feedback—is absolutely the right way to go about ensuring that schools in the round improve their performance and raise their standards.
Finally, to ensure that there is no further doubt about the approach, under previous arrangements some 68 per cent. of head teachers considered that the benefits of the interior inspections by Ofsted outweighed the negatives. With the new arrangements we have increased that satisfaction rate to 85 per cent. There is a welcome for the new arrangements and a welcome for the approach being taken in these clauses. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to withdraw his amendments on the basis of my remarks.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for that full response to the amendments. I take his point that the newly merged Ofsted inspectorate will have different sections within it. The particular skills to inspect schools are different from the skills needed to inspect a social services department within a local authority. People with those particular skills need to be developed and specialised. I am reassured by the comments that he made.
The Under-Secretary was right to say that the purpose of the amendments was to find a way to raise the energy level of Ofsted. We want to ensure that this hugely increased new body, with its vast new responsibilities, will not result in a loss of focus on raising standards in schools. The Under-Secretary said that he was committed to higher standards in schools and that the Government’s commitment to higher standards in schools is absolute. We share that objective. That is why there is consensus on the Committee and in the House over the Bill in general and on such clauses as this in particular.
The Under-Secretary is also right to say—and I accept it—that “user focus” is a widespread phrase in modern life. I bow to no one in my modernisation credentials. The purpose of raising the phrase was to have it defined. He was very helpful in fleshing out what he means by “user focus”. On the basis of that response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 105

Performance of Chief Inspector’s functions

Nadine Dorries: I beg to move amendment No. 376, in clause 105, page 78, line 24, at end add—
‘(5) The cost of any inspection by or on behalf of the Chief Inspector shall be carried entirely by the Office of the Chief Inspector.
(6) No school, whether maintained or independent, shall be charged for inspection, nor be charged for any expenses incurred by the inspectors.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 377, in clause 109, page 80, line 24, at end add—
‘(5) The cost of any inspection by or on behalf of the Chief Inspector shall be carried entirely by the Office of the Chief Inspector.
(6) No institution shall be charged for an inspection, nor be charged for any expenses incurred by the inspectors.'.
New clause 41—Payment of annual fee to the Chief Inspector by the Secretary of State—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall pay to the Office of the Chief Inspector the annual fee and any other such fees as are due by virtue of inspections made of, or on behalf of, local authorities.
(2) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify the amount of fees he will pay to the Office arising from subsection (1).'.

Nadine Dorries: Until now Ofsted inspections have been paid for by the maintained school, out of that school’s budget. Where Ofsted also inspects independent schools, it also charges the school. Not only does that place an extra cost upon a school’s already tight budget, but it means that there is no incentive upon the inspectors to act as economically as possible. They can take more days to inspect the school and they can send in a greater number of inspectors than is necessary. They can add travel and hotel expenses and have no incentive to find the most economical means of travel or the cheapest hotel.
Depending on the size of the school and the length of the inspection, the cost can be between £6,000 and £20,000, which would put a big hole in any school’s budget. When that cost is compared to the budget that some schools have for their children with special educational needs, there is a huge disparity. Should not the office of the inspector therefore have a budget that will enable it to pay for its own activities? That might bring focus of thought and make it restrict its activities to what is absolutely necessary.
I am not sure how schools will feel about paying up to £20,000 for the reports that the Minister just mentioned. I am quite in favour of reports being written in language that the children can understand, but recently the newspapers have contained examples of similar reports that say, “Your teachers need to work harder” or, “Your teachers need to try harder.” I am not sure that that is appropriate language or that schools will be happy to pay for it to be given to their pupils. As the mother of a child with special educational needs I have had some head-on battles with teachers, but I know that most teachers are trying their best, and I am not sure that that is the right way to represent the teaching profession.
Turning to new clause 41, the inspectorate has no incentive to minimise how often inspections are carried out, how long inspections take, how many inspectors are used, and the extra expenses that may be incurred. The local authority should not have to pay out of its budget. One of the reasons why many children are in mainstream schools rather than special schools, and are not statemented to the extent they should be, is that the local education authority tends to run out of money. Should the local authority pay for such inspections, or should the cost be paid out of the Secretary of State’s budget or from the budget that he designates for the inspectorate? It is too easy politically to present all this inspection as cost-free when, in fact, the costs are paid out of school budgets or the budgets of local authorities that are already strapped for cash. We should have open sight of the cost of each inspection and the budget for inspections should go directly to the inspectorate.

Sarah Teather: We have some sympathy with the points that the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) has raised, but we shall listen carefully to the Minister’s response on why the budget has never been given to the inspectorate, and has instead been a matter for schools.

Phil Hope: Amendment No. 376 is designed to ensure that schools in both the maintained and the independent sectors will not be charged for inspections or forced to pay the expenses incurred by inspectors. I assure all hon. Members that the new Ofsted will meet the entire cost of inspecting maintained schools, including any costs incurred during inspection. There are absolutely no plans to introduce charging for maintained schools.

Nadine Dorries: Will that also apply to independent schools, or will there be a dual standard?

Phil Hope: I was about to turn to the independent sector. Since 1 September 2003, independent schools have been charged for the cost of inspection under the Education Act 2002. The Government believe it is important that all schools—maintained and independent—are inspected on a regular cycle and that the results of those inspections are available to parents, so that they know about the standards of education that are being delivered in their child’s school. The fees charged by Ofsted for the inspection of independent schools are to enable it to undertake the more detailed inspection that is required to publish more informative reports. That was a change from the previous position, in which parents had no access to information about standards in independent schools. I see no reason to move from the current position.

Nadine Dorries: Why does the Under-Secretary believe that the independent sector needs more thorough investigation than maintained schools? I would argue that parents have more power in the independent sector, because if they see something going wrong they can vote with their feet or argue their case, whereas parents in the maintained sector sometimes cannot.

Phil Hope: I am intrigued by the notion that the independent sector should not be inspected, so that the children at independent schools and the parents who send them there cannot make a judgment about the quality of the education provided. If I sent my child to an independent school, which I have no intention of ever doing, I would be slightly worried if the school could not be inspected to ensure that my child was getting an adequate education. I am surprised that the hon. Lady advocates that. I am not sure that the sector does not want to inspected. Of course, parents pay fees and fees pay for the education, which includes the cost of the inspections conducted in that sector.

Robert Wilson: Ofsted argued recently to the Education and Skills Committee that light-touch inspection is the way forward and that self-assessment should be the way forward in maintained schools so that they would do a lot of the work themselves. If so, should the independent sector be treated any differently?

Frank Cook: Order. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that the amendments are not about whether there should be inspections, but about who pays for them.

Phil Hope: Precisely so. We think that independent schools should pay the costs of being inspected. The inspection regime that applies to independent schools is no more detailed than the one that applies to the maintained sector. I still see no reason why, in terms of the costs and who bears those costs, we should change the system. We are not going to enter into a debate, at least not on this group of amendments, about the nature of that inspection regime and how it is administered.
The intention behind chapter 3 of the Bill is to provide the statutory basis of inspection of publicly funded further education and training institutions by the new chief inspector in the same way as now applies with the adult learning inspectorate. The adult learning inspectorate does not currently charge any institutions providing the education and training described in clause 109 for an inspection or to meet any expenses incurred by inspectors. I can assure hon. Members that that will continue to be the case with the chief inspector. Those are the major points that the hon. Lady made in presenting her amendments to the Committee. They covered a wide area, but I think that I addressed her specific points. I therefore ask her to withdraw her amendment.

Nadine Dorries: I am intrigued: the Minister began by saying that independent schools will have to pay for inspections because they will have a more thorough inspection, but later he said that they would have the same level of inspection as maintained schools. He contradicted himself. I am quite happy for independent schools to be inspected. We have no argument with that. We are asking why there should be one rule for one—

Phil Hope: That is what the hon. Lady said earlier.

Nadine Dorries: No, that is not what I said. The Minister is completely wrong. I am happy for independent and maintained schools to be inspected. However, I am not happy for one of those groups of schools to have to pay for that inspection. It should be the same across the board.

Mary Creagh: If parents choose to send their children to a fee-paying private school, should they not be expected to pay the full costs of that school?

Nadine Dorries: No, because unfortunately the money that parents pay through their taxation is not hypothecated. Those parents pay their taxes and then they pay the independent fees. They are actually paying twice. Why should they have to pay for the inspection?

Jonathan R Shaw: Another good point.

Nadine Dorries: We are hearing typical ideological comments coming from Labour Members. The fact is that those parents are paying twice and they should not. I am quite happy to withdraw the amendment because the Minister’s comments will have been recorded in Hansard for everyone to see that he has contradicted himself.

Frank Cook: I ought to point out that the hon. Lady is ready to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nadine Dorries: Sorry, Mr. Cook. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 106

Children’s Rights Director

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 527, in clause 106, page 78, line 28, leave out ‘Rights' and insert ‘Welfare'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 528, in clause 106, page 78, line 29, leave out ‘Rights' and insert ‘Welfare'.

Nick Gibb: We tabled the amendments before seeing the draft regulations in order to probe what is envisioned by the title “children’s rights director.” Our initial concern was that the title over-raised expectations of the true extent of the functions of that post. The children’s rights director established by the clause is limited to assisting the chief inspector in three main areas. First, he is to be responsible for functions under section 87 of the Children Act 1989, which relates to the welfare of pupils at boarding schools. Secondly, he is to be responsible for functions under the Care Standards Act 2000 relating to the regulation of care homes, children’s homes, and independent hospitals, among other things. Thirdly, his functions will cover the inspection of social services functions relating to children aged under 18 and functions conferred on local authorities by the Children Act 1989. Those functions appear to be far more about welfare than about children’s rights.
The draft Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Children’s Rights Director) Regulations give the children’s rights director the functions of advising and assisting the chief inspector with all the functions that I have mentioned. When doing so, he should have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children, and to views expressed by relevant persons about activities within his remit. He is also able to inform the chief inspector of any matters that could be considered as significant to the rights and welfare of children in those three areas.
The regulations clarify the purpose of the children’s rights director, and we broadly welcome them. However, there is a risk that the role could be confused and overlap with that of the children’s commissioner established by the Children Act 2004, which is to promote awareness of the views of young people. The children’s commissioner
“must have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child”,
and is able to initiate inquiries into children’s issues and publish them. He is charged with representing the interests, and therefore the rights, of all children. The functions of the children’s rights director are instead primarily related to the welfare of certain groups of children, particularly vulnerable children, and not with children’s rights more generally. That is why the amendment would change the title to “children’s welfare director”.

Annette Brooke: I, too, had some concerns that there could be confusion about the roles of the children’s commissioner and the children’s rights director. As I understand it, in effect, the latter position already exists; I look to the Minister for clarification. Indeed, I am not even sure whether the title already exists.
I am certainly aware of the reason for all the functions. The inspection of boarding schools is important as part of the overall inspection regime. It makes sense to bring everything under one umbrella.
I reiterate that I should like to be clear about whether the children’s commissioner will work with the children’s rights director. Is there any overlap? Will we expect any communication between them? Does the commissioner have the right to get any information from the director? Has the title been used before? I agree that there is an element of confusion, as things stand, and I should like to hear the Minister fully explain the title.

Phil Hope: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton for moving the amendment, which gives me an opportunity to clarify the position of the children’s rights director. I am going to argue that we do not see any benefit in changing the title, and perhaps he will be convinced of that after hearing what I have to say. I shall come on to the point that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) raised about relationships.
The essence of the post of children’s rights director, which is set out in the draft regulations to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is to be the voice within Ofsted of the most vulnerable children. That is the most critical function. To encapsulate all that the hon. Gentleman described, the director’s role is to be the voice of those most vulnerable children. We intend the children’s rights director to assist and advise the chief inspector with his duties, to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the rights and welfare of children when carrying out his functions, and in particular to find out what children think about the services they receive. His function is restricted to those children in receipt of social care services—that is a crucial difference between his role in the inspectorate and that of the commissioner. He must ensure that the most vulnerable and those most are risk are protected and that those accommodated in schools and further education colleges are given a voice in the new Ofsted.
The post of children’s rights director has been in existence since 2002. Last summer, we consulted on transferring the post, at present hosted by the Commission for Social Care Inspection, to the new Ofsted as part of the wider consultation that I have already mentioned. There was great support across the piece for the transfer of the post to the new inspectorate and we responded by making a commitment to doing so. No one who responded to the consultation suggested that we should alter the title of the post, and I hope that that I have clarified its functions.
I want to make it clear that the word “rights” in the title refers to the entitlement of children to receive the services set out in legislation. I cite the example of the regulatory framework in part 2 of the 2000 Act for establishments such as children’s homes. The inspectorate’s job is to undertake responsibility for those rights.
Let me describe the relationship between the role of the children’s rights director and that of the commissioner. Each will have his own separate powers and duties as set out in the relevant measures and they will have separate, but inter-related roles, as the hon. Lady rightly said.
The children’s commissioner has been appointed to ensure that there is someone looking out for all children and young people and to see that they have access to the universal services. The children’s rights director is appointed especially to look out for the three groups of children and young people described in his duties and to see that they have access to the specialist services.
There is a relationship between the two posts and it is important that the holders work together. However, they have different functions, roles and responsibilities, which are located in different parts of the legislation. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Lady. I am happy to write to her and to other members of the Committee to spell out in more detail matters that I do not have time to explain now if that will help hon. Members to understand how the two roles differ, how they relate to one another and how they might work together or separately, depending on the circumstances.
I hope that that clarifies the position and that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will therefore ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb: That is a helpful explanation and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 107 and 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 109

Children’s Rights Director

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 530, in clause 109, page 80, line 6, at end insert—
‘(ga) education and training in prisons and young offenders institutions;'.
The amendment would extend the clause to prison education. At present, there are significant problems in prison education, which most people believe contribute to reoffending. The Government issued a Green Paper on the subject in December last year, which I am sure the Under-Secretary has with him. I, too, have read it carefully and we have been able to discuss it, thanks to his generosity and courtesy. The Green Paper acknowledges the many significant problems; I will highlight a few in support of my amendment.
One of the difficulties is that prisoners are often moved around, so they do not have consistency in education opportunities. Those who teach them often move around, too, so they are often left not having the same teacher and not being able to build a relationship with a teacher that would assist their learning. I imagine that you know, Mr. Cook, that the Forum on Prisoner Education has warned the Government that, in its judgment, a year after the Education and Skills Committee wrote a damning report on the quality of learning in prisons in England, little has improved. Only four of that Committee’s 55 recommendations have been fully met. The forum also says that the plans published in the Green Paper will help—in particular, they should help offenders to find jobs when they leave prison.
The salient point is that if we can provide prisoners with a reasonable opportunity to learn while in prison we may first, reduce the reoffending rate, and secondly, assist them to build a life once they leave prison that is worthwhile, wholesome and lawful. The Education and Skills Committee found that 96 per cent of jobs were not available to people leaving prison because they did not have adequate skills to do those jobs.
I do not for a moment suggest that the Under-Secretary or indeed the Labour party as a whole does not care about this matter or recognise some of the points that I am making. However, by accepting the amendment before us the Under-Secretary would signal an intention to build into the Bill the proper consideration of these urgent matters. Indeed, one might say that if the amendment were resisted precisely the opposite signal would be transmitted: that the good intentions of the Green Paper were not being given force in legislation. Given that we do not yet have legislation affecting prison education, the amendment gives us a golden opportunity to make that commitment to send precisely that signal.
I could go on but the lateness of the hour, the length of the Committee sitting and the urgency of other matters forbids me from so doing. I look forward to hearing what the Under-Secretary has to say before deciding whether we will press our amendment.

Sarah Teather: We are very supportive of this Conservative amendment, despite the fact that when we moved a new clause in an earlier sitting requiring a statutory obligation to provide education for those in prisons, the Conservatives did not support us but abstained in the Division. The amendment seems to be in the spirit of our new clause, so we support it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole went through the arguments at some length in a previous sitting and so I shall not repeat them, but the Minister said in response to the points that she made that a Green Paper was out for consultation now, so there was no need for such provisions to be put into the Bill. However, it will take some time to move from a Green Paper through the consultation to the process of getting the proposals enacted. To echo the comments of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, we have an opportunity to make sure that we get something into legislation now, so that there is ongoing monitoring and so that we can drive up the standards of education in prison from now and not simply wait for that legislation to come on to the statute book.

Phil Hope: Hon. Members will appreciate that this is a short debate on a large topic. Before I speak to the amendments, I would like to draw attention to the fact that a considerable amount of work has been carried out to improve the quality of offender learning both in and outside prisons and funding for offender learning has increased from £57 million in 2001-02 to £151 million in 2005-06. We have a much better external inspection of prison education to the same tough standards as for mainstream education and training, and we have seen an impressive increase in offenders’ basic skills. We are building training into the prison day, alongside activities such as prison industries, catering and so on, as well as more opportunities for offenders to take part in higher education.
I accept the criticism. We would not have published a Green Paper unless something needed to be done, but I think that we have already travelled quite a long way along the path. I cannot accept the analysis offered by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings of the Education and Skills Committee’s report or the Forum for Prison Education’s comments. We rejected some of the recommendations because we did not agree with them, but those that we agreed with are either being implemented or form part of our Green Paper.

John Hayes: I do not want to break the spirit of consensus, particularly so late in our consideration of the Bill. We want a happy afternoon. However, the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee, speaking of these very matters, said that the Government have failed to meet their manifesto commitment to
“dramatically increase the quality and quantity of education provision”
in that field. The Government published the Green Paper in December. What had they been doing since 1997?

Phil Hope: I shall not be drawn into a debate on the present Government’s track record on offender learning compared with the Conservative Government’s. We are pleased with what we have achieved so far, but we want to go considerably further. The Green Paper spells out what we want to do to improve training within the Prison Service to give offenders within and outside prisons the skills they need to get into jobs. The hon. Gentleman and I agree that one of the critical things—among many others— that goes wrong in the lives of offenders is not having a job, with no income and all that that might lead to.
Another point that I wanted to pick up was on young people in the prison system. We make it clear in the Green Paper that we need to get that issue right. We are looking at proposals on how school-age offenders are dealt with within various parts of the prison system—secure detention centres, young offenders institutions and the like—and whether we can produce a coherent and strategic approach to their needs, particularly their educational needs. I put that before the Committee because I think that is important to understand in relation to whether the amendments are needed. I am going to argue that, because of our ongoing work, the amendments are not needed.
The adult learning inspectorate at Ofsted already inspects education and training in prisons and young offenders institutions that is funded by the Learning and Skills Council. The inspectors do so as part of the general inspections of prisons and young offenders institutions carried out by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons. Where ALI and Ofsted have the power to inspect now, the new inspectorate will continue to have that power, so prisons inspection will continue in the same way as now. That is why the amendment is unnecessary.
It is possible through clause 109(1)(h) for the Secretary of State to make regulations bringing
“such other education or training”
into the definition of educational training that will fall within the remit of what the new chief inspector can inspect. The regulations can include education and training for offenders that for whatever reason is not funded by the LSC. That means we cover all angles.
I assure hon. Members that education and training in prisons and young offenders institutions will not fall through any potential gap that hon. Members may have been concerned about. Co-operation and joint action provisions are also built into the Bill. The chief inspector will have to co-operate with the chief inspector for justice, community safety and custody, where appropriate, and to act jointly, again where appropriate. I want to reassure Committee members that we want the quality of teaching and learning for offenders and for all other types of education and training provision to be of an equally high standard across the FE sector, irrespective of the type of provision or setting.
In conclusion, I take the issue very seriously. I am aware of the challenge. Putting aside any party political points that we might wish to make, I hope that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and I have found common cause in wanting to find a way forward for the prison system and the offenders’ learning system as a whole. When we bring forward proposals on the treatment of young people within the prison system, I hope that we find common cause on meeting their needs as well. On that basis I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments.

John Hayes: The Under-Secretary has again demonstrated that he understands the issue and is anxious to do something about it. The problem is profound and though I do not want to prolong the debate any longer than necessary, I want to mention what was said by the director of the Forum for Prisoner Education, Steve Taylor. He said:
“Government would close a failing school or college if improvements took this long, so why is it acceptable in prisons? They should return to the Committee’s recommendations and take urgent action.”
I understand that the Government have published their consultation paper, but I think that it may be necessary to look again at statutory measures that would make proposals a reality. Although much can be done without statutory provision, some action may require it. I hope that the debate will continue—indeed, it may be time for a debate in the House, and I hope that the Minister agrees that we should encourage that.

Phil Hope: Consultation on the Green Paper closes at the end of May, and there has been widespread public consultation, but rather less discussion in the House. I would therefore welcome the opportunity to debate such matters either in an Adjournment debate or through whatever mechanism the hon. Gentleman thinks most appropriate.

John Hayes: I am grateful for that assurance. It would be right to have a debate at the end of the consultation, and when it takes place we can explore the areas where we can agree, and those where we can suggest further Government thinking. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 110

Inspection of education and training to which this Chapter applies

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 531, in clause 110, page 80, line 38, leave out ‘quality adequate' and insert ‘sufficiently high quality'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 532, in clause 111, page 81, line 17, leave out ‘quality adequate' and insert ‘sufficiently high quality'.

John Hayes: The amendment takes us to the subject of the quality of education offered in FE colleges. The Opposition do not want the Government to focus only on coasting schools and not on coasting colleges. In the early days of the Committee, there was a good debate on the difficulties of coasting schools—Members were all fresher and younger then—and the point was made that the focus is often on institutions that are at the bottom end while coasting institutions are neglected. That applies equally to colleges.
Sir Andrew Foster’s report has given a great deal of cause for debate on FE. He talks about its diffuse purpose and the fact that it perhaps tries to do too much, so its purpose is therefore misunderstood. Part of the problem is also that the best should be demanded of FE. In my work as Opposition spokesman, I have visited a number of colleges. I suspect that Ministers have visited even more, so they will know that there is some excellent FE practice that we need to export.
By raising the bar on standards and by using the amendment to increase the expectations of FE, the Committee would do a service to the Bill, the Government and the sector. It is right to be clear about what is expected of FE, but it is also right to be clear about the standards that FE should achieve. Inserting the words “sufficiently high quality” to ensure high FE standards would be an appropriate response to the Foster review.
This is another subject that we might debate at greater length on the Floor of the House or elsewhere, and I shall conclude by observing that only 15 per cent. of employers use FE colleges when seeking solutions to their training and skills needs.
There is some way to go in making the improvements we all seek. I hope that we start that journey with the ready acceptance of the amendment, which I anticipate is about to issue from the Under-Secretary’s lips.

Annette Brooke: I rise in support of the hon. Gentleman. This is anew-found alliance for the last day of consideration in Committee.[Interruption.] No, I do not think I could go quite as far asCornerstone. [Interruption.] Or firmfriends.
The wordingin this section of the Bill is really strange to the layman. Iappreciate that the draftsmanship might be correct, but if I may beforgiven, it sounds peculiar to requirethat
“the Chief Inspectorconsiders the education or training inspected to be of a qualityadequate to meet the reasonable needs of those receivingit”.
Reading that as alayperson, the near downgrading of what further education is doingsounds almost patronising. However, I accept that a special phrasemight be beingused.
The Governmenthave given a warm reception to the Foster report, which points out thatthe majority of FE colleges are performing very well, although someneed to raise their game. That does not go far enough to address thepoints that Foster made. Nor does it go far enough in considering thewide variety of courses that FE provides—from the highlyvocational, such as plumbing, through to those dealing with thespecific needs of local employers, who themselves would demand a higherstandard than that. With that, I await the Under-Secretary telling methat the wording is absolutelyperfect.

Phil Hope: I am slightly worried about spending most of my lifein the Chamber with the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings,debating a variety of measures that the Government have introduced. Thehon. Gentleman mentioned Foster, but failed to mention our recentfurther education White Paper, “Raising Skills, Improving LifeChances”, which drew on the excellent Foster report. Indeed, wehave agreed to implement all but six of the 80 or so recommendations inthat report.
BeingMinister responsible for FE while being married to a senior FE managermakes for lively pillow talk when we get home on a Friday night, so Iam mindful of concerns within the FE sector over the importance ofraising its performance. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that,unlike the picture he describes, there has been a significantimprovement in standards and the quality of provision within FE in thelast few years.
Wehave seen FE standards rise, while the cycle of inspection shows a bigimprovement in the quality of teaching and learning within our FEsector. We are taking new measures in the FE White Paper—I ammindful, Mr. Cook, of the fact that this is not an opportunity to debate it—to ensure thatcoasting colleges are challenged, that where there is failure there canbe intervention to ensure that it is swiftly dealt with, and that weraise standards across the board.
The picture is of an FE sectorthat is, as we see it, at the core of the Government’s drive forraising productivity and generating the skills that our country needsfor long-term economic success. Indeed, we place that economic missionat the core of FE’s purpose. That, along with various detailedmeasures on specialisation and quality improvement, is clearly speltout in our White Paper. Indeed, the newly established QualityImprovement Agency, which is the result of merging a variety of bodieswith such responsibilities, will provide the FE sector with advice andsupport on deliveringthat.
A final driverfor quality is the point raised by the hon. Gentleman on the demands ofemployers. We are thus developing and changing the funding system sothat it is much more demand led. In particular, we are rolling out anambitious programme called train to gain. Formerly known as theemployer training programme, train to gain is a demanding systemwhereby employers are offered free training for a full level 2qualification for their staff. It offers the FE sector an opportunityto be responsive to employers and their needs in theworkplace.
Making FEcolleges more responsive to the needs of individual learners and ofemployers is a crucial part of the quality improvement that the hon.Gentleman and other Opposition Members would like tosee.

John Hayes: The Under-Secretary will know that the Associationof Colleges has made this argument on the new Government trainingscheme:
“Trainto Gain will increase publicly supported workplace training but may notincrease overall skillslevels.”
Will he commentonthat?

Phil Hope: Yes. Having addressed the Association of Collegesonly yesterday during its consultation meeting on the FE White Paper, Iam greatly encouraged by the widespread support among colleges for theproposals in that document. The association sees that train to gainwill provide additional resources that it will be able to bidfor.
The key aspect oftrain to gain is that there will be brokers whom employers can talk to.Employers with a staff training need will be able to go to a broker andsay, “Which is the best provider of training in my area todeliver the quality of training where I want it, when I want it and atthe price I want it?” The broker will know those providers andtheir locality.
Alocal college might be one of those providers, but that will not beautomatic, which will drive up the quality of service provided by thoseFE colleges, because they will find themselves in a competitivesituation where they need to attract that resource. That I know frompersonal experience. It is having an enormous impact on how colleges goabout their business, how they employ staff and how they managethemselves.

John Hayes: I am sorry to press the Under-Secretary, but he hasraised that important issue in respect of train to gain and the qualitythat is implicit in our amendment. The Association of Colleges, whichhe spoke to yesterday, argues in its briefing that
“the Government’s ownresearch on the pilot phase suggests as much as 85 per cent.deadweight—employers are using Train to Gain funds to trainemployees they would have trained using their ownfunds.”
How much of aproblem is that and how does he intend to deal withit?

Phil Hope: That is just slightly off the focus of theamendment, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the pilots we heldwith the national employer training programme, and the findings of thefirst year of the pilot programme, enabled us to ensure that in anational roll-out, which is happening this year, we have reduced thedeadweight to an absolute minimum. One way that we are doing that is toprovide specific guidance to the brokers, whose job it is to reach outand find those employers who do not train their staff—thehard-to-reach employer who does not undertaketraining.
The brokerwill persuade those employers of the benefits of training for theirstaff, and inform them that is free up to a full level 2 qualificationand that good-quality training can be provided. A policy of wagecompensation for employers with under 50 employees also helps to ensurethat the small employers will benefit from their staff undertaking thattraining.
By givingguidance to those brokers to reach out to those employers who do nototherwise train, or indeed to employers who train overall but do nottrain some parts of their work force, we are ensuring that we minimisethe risks that the hon. Gentleman alluded to. These measures are alldesigned to raise the quality and the volume of training in thiscountry to meet the real skills needs that he hasdescribed.

John Hayes: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for hiscomprehensive response to my point. But is adequate good enough in thatrespect? The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole makes apowerful point that when employers are looking at the programme theGovernment are putting in place, they are going to want something morethan adequate if they are really going to engage in a way that theyhave not done thusfar.

Phil Hope: Let me turn to the amendment, which is seeking to substitute the words “high quality” for “adequate”. We share the ambition of wanting high quality. I havespoken at length about the new funding regime through “train togain”, the new quality improvement agency and the new measuresto do with coasting or failing colleges. We are demonstrating throughthe FE White Paper that we are indeed seeking to promote a highquality. I will just get the figures right: 18 per cent. of employersdo not use FE colleges; 28 per cent. of employers train already but donot use FE colleges as their provider of training. That is a hugemarket, offering an opportunity for the FE sector to capture those employers by providing them with training and receivingthe required funding.
We are putting in place a rangeof measures to improve quality and we share the ambition to achievethat. That is happening under current legislation, in which we use theword “adequate”. Inserting the term “highquality” would not have the intended effect of achievingquality, which we have been debating for a few minutes.
We have consulted extensivelywith the FE sector about the common inspection framework, including thecriteria for reaching judgments on standards and grading inspectionfindings. Key stakeholders within the sector are familiar with thatframework and understand the basis on which inspectors reach judgmentsand gradings about their provision. It is important to maintain acontinuity of approach and practice as part of transferring the FE andtraining remit to the new Ofsted. There is no case for changing theterm used in the Bill; instead, we are taking action on a range ofother fronts, a few of which I have mentioned, through our FE WhitePaper. That will ensure that we raise the quality of FE provisionacross thecountry.

John Hayes: I am extremely pleased that we have had the chanceto have a short debate on this important subject, and theUnder-Secretary has illustrated, as ever, that he is a master of hisbrief. However, I am not sure that he has been persuasive on thecentral point of the amendment.
I have no doubt about the hon.Gentleman’s desire to inject new energy into the field or aboutour shared view that the quality must be the highest, but I am not surethat one can make a reasoned case that it is important to tell thosewho inspect colleges that that they need to look for the very highestquality, as he said, and not then use the same language in the Bill. Itwould be more consistent to use the words “high quality”,as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and I have suggested,and then support that by using the same terminology in the guidance,advice and all other documentation. That is what Opposition Memberswant, and it seems to have been sufficiently seductive to attract thesupport of the Liberal Democrats. I am surprised, therefore, that theUnder-Secretary did not race to agree with us. He may change his mindon reflection, and I hope that we might talk further about the matteronce he has re-examined it. To encourage him to do so with the kind ofseriousness that will be necessary to get this right, we shall pressthe amendment to a Division. We do so not to criticise theUnder-Secretary but to push him one stage further in the interests offurther education and those who enjoy itsbenefits.

Questionput, That the amendment bemade.

TheCommittee divided: Ayes 9, Noes13.

Questionaccordingly negatived.

Clause 110 ordered to standpart of theBill.

Frank Cook: By leave of the Committee, I will put en blocclauses 111 to 120inclusive.

John Hayes: I want to say a word about clause120.

Frank Cook: I hear the hon. Gentleman’spoint.

David Chaytor: I want to raise a smallbut important point on clause 114, and it may well also relate toclause 112.

Frank Cook: In that case we will go on to clauses 111 to 113.

Annette Brooke: I would like to ask a brief question on clause 112.

Frank Cook: Domine da mihi patientiam.

Clause 111 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 112

Other inspections

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Annette Brooke: I should like to ask the Minister whether the inspection of hospital education comes within this provision. Does it merely refer to a local authority level and is there any way of carrying out a thematic inspection of hospital education across the country?

David Chaytor: The point that I want to raise on this clause, which also relates to clause 114, is the inspection of federations of schools. The clause seems to give the chief inspector a wide brief and a significant amount of discretion. Clause 114 refers specifically to area inspections. The traditional definition of an area inspection is a geographical division related to the local authority boundaries or, within large local authorities, a distinct geographical sub-division of the local authority.
The increasing interest in the establishment of federations, the increasing number of federations across the country and the way the Bill itself promotes the concept of federated schools raises the important question of whether we will gradually move to a system in which the unit of inspection would normally be the federation and not the school. In view of the Secretary of State’s remarks in her speech of 26 April and the implications of the terms of reference for the Gilbert review, could the Minister give us some indication of the Government’s thinking on the inspection of federations?

John Hayes: The clause and related clauses deal with the inspection regime. It would be remiss not to point out that Sir Andrew Foster, who has already been mentioned in Committee, was quite clear that
“less centralisation and moves towards greater self-regulation”
were required. He said:
“We were very struck that several other effective systems that we studied do not have anything like the same large scale regulatory, inspection and advisory system.”
I appreciate that there are difficulties here. The Bill will merge the adult learning inspectorate with Ofsted, which we will talk about under clause 120, but it also proposes a new regulatory body, the Quality Improvement Agency, bringing the total number of bodies to 17.
We have to be clear about our intentions here. If they are to pursue the Hampton review and the Chancellor’s commitment to reduce the number of bodies involved, and if we see that as critical to clarifying FE’s role, we deserve from the Under-Secretary an explanation why those opportunities have not been taken to a greater degree in this Bill. One of the most difficult aspects of my job, and I imagine his job too, is getting to grips with all those organisations that are involved in funding, regulating, inspecting and advising the sector. If people of the hon. Gentleman’s insight cannot easily grasp this—I make no claims for myself—I wonder what the rest of the world must think. It was important to take the opportunity in this clause to test the Under-Secretary’s views on that subject.

Phil Hope: I shall deal with the three points that have been raised. I apologise for not knowing the answer to the question about hospital education asked by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, but I will write to her and circulate my reply to other members of the Committee. I hope that she is satisfied with that answer for now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) asked about area inspections. Clause 114 will enable the Secretary of State to continue to carry out 14-to-19 area inspections under the Learning and Skills Act 2000, because of the structural reorganisation of the inspection system. I reassure my hon. Friend that as part of those 14-to-19 area inspections or the joint area reviews, the inspectors will consider whether providers collaborate effectively to deliver the high-quality provision required for 14 to 19-year-old learners.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the partnerships, we are focusing on supporting them to enable them to evaluate the impact of their collaborative working for themselves, and to work together where it is shown that a clear partnership dividend results from that approach.
We are often asked, as was the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, if key stage results could be published as a whole. The difficulty in doing so is that accountability still rests with the individual institution. Although they can see the collaborative work, parents will want to know how their child’s school is performing. A single figure covering several institutions could mask potential underperformance by an individual institution.

David Chaytor: I understand that point entirely, but is it not the case that as the flexibility of the 14-to-19 curriculum increases and also the number of pupils who may follow their curriculum choices at different sites—for example, at different schools, colleges or work-based training—the relevance of the individual school diminishes? The extent to which the individual school and the individual head teacher can be held accountable for the quality of teaching or training at other sites becomes problematic.

Phil Hope: That is an interesting conundrum, because that very problem may also be a driver for improvement in the system. A head teacher of the home institution may see a child for whom he or she is accountable receiving a less than perfect education at another institution that the child attends. That head teacher will be encouraged to have a good dialogue with the head of the other institution in the partnership to help the child’s performance, which will count in respect of the home institution. There is a mutual interest in the performance of the other institution in a partnership.
My hon. Friend’s argument cuts both ways. The answer is not straightforward, but the general point about being able to assess the collaborative arrangements and the extent to which they deliver is important. We will encourage partnerships to publicise good results and good ways of working, which might encourage parents to value that partnership as well as valuing the single institution.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Gilbert review of education for children from five to 16, which is looking at a range of issues and is due to report by the end of the year. I will consider what he said about 14-to-19 education, although I hope that he understands the dilemma involved in the choices to be made in respect of their intended and unintended consequences.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned the infrastructure of quality, improvement, regulation and inspection. We have made it clear, and I think the Committee agrees, that we need to separate the inspection function from the advice and support function. Ofsted inspects, and delivers a view, but it does not follow that up by providing advice and support to implement change. That job is done separately for a purpose, because the inspection would be compromised were the support function allied to it. At least two functions are needed, as well as the Government’s regulatory function.
In respect of the quality improvement function, we recognise that there has been a cluttered landscape of improvement agencies in the Department and elsewhere, which is why we created a single agency—the Quality Improvement Agency—to bring together the various advice and support functions.
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, it is important that quality improvement becomes a self-improvement strategy, so that instead of continually relying on external support and advice, institutions are encouraged to develop a self-improvement system with its own managerial functions. That way, there is a self-perpetuating system of self-improvement rather than a relationship dependent on a more expensive system of advice.
In light of those brief responses I hope that hon. Members will agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 113 to 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 120

Abolition of Adult Learning Inspectorate

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes: The clause deals with the abolition of the adult learning inspectorate. As I said a few moments ago, one understands the Government’s aim of trying to simplify the arrangements for advice and inspection in the field of further and continuing education. However, this proposed abolition has not been uncontentious. No less a body than the Institute of Directors has expressed strong views on it, and for the Committee’s benefit I shall enlighten Members on those views:
“Given the ALI’s successful contribution to improving the quality of adult learning and training, this is an is entirely unnecessary change. The process will be disruptive, as the organisations involved inexorably focus their attention on internal structural changes rather than on employers, training providers and learners. It puts in jeopardy the improvements that have been achieved in work-based learning provision. It also seems inevitable that, despite the Government’s protestations and soothing reassurances, the new inspectorate will concentrate on children and schools at the expense of adults.”
The Institute of Directors continued:
“Contrary to the wishes of many businesses, the Government has needlessly taken a wrecking ball to a successful organisation widely held in high esteem. If this exercise is to amount to more than senseless vandalism, it is absolutely vital that the new inspectorate pays due attention to adult learning and training.”
I do not necessarily argue that there should not be any change—there may well be a solid case for simplifying the structures for funding, advice and inspection—but I worry that the move will further undermine confidence in adult learning. There has been a series of cuts in relation to adult learning in colleges around the country, of which Members from all parties will be aware, and there have been protests about those cuts from people who consequently feel disfranchised.
I am most anxious to ensure that the Government’s understandable concentration on younger adult learners does not displace all concern for those older people who need to be trained and skilled. I am particularly mindful of the new core entitlements up to the age of 25. Of course it is right that people who have not gained core skills at school should have another chance to do so, but there are worries among those on the Opposition Benches and in colleges that the effect may be to focus the attention of colleges away from upskilling and reskilling older workers and enabling older learners to engage in education.

Meg Hillier: As an east London Member, this matter concerns me greatly as well. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 250,000 over-50s in London who are able to work but unable to get jobs? There is a great need for a skills base in London, which is the powerhouse of the UK, although representing South Holland and the Deepings, the hon. Gentleman might not agree with that.

John Hayes: The hon. Lady speaks with her usual mix of passion and knowledge. She is right that older potential workers, who are unable to learn new skills that would make them more employable, are a wasted resource. This is about the success of our economy—we desperately need to upskill and reskill, and we know that we have a schools crisis, which I do not think the Under-Secretary would deny—and personal fulfilment. Many people lead less fulfilled lives than they might, both in their employment and in terms of human happiness, as a result of not having had the opportunities that we on the Opposition Benches, and I am sure many on the Government Benches, feel that they should have had.
To probe the Government, I ask the Under-Secretary to say a little more on the matter. What are the Government’s intentions in respect of adult learning, how will the changes affect it and will he reassure us that it remains central to their ambitions for FE and continuing education? How does he answer the criticism from bodies such as the Institute of Directors?

Phil Hope: We are travelling across the broad landscape of my ministerial responsibilities this afternoon. I will try to be brief. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that there have not been cuts in funding for FE, whose funding has gone up 48 per cent. in real terms since 1997.
There has been a major increase in investment in skills and adult learning since we came to office. We are seeking to prioritise our funding in a number of ways. The hon. Gentleman mentioned young people aged 16 to 19, and he was right to do so. It is vital that we do not have a flow of under-qualified or unqualified young people coming into the work force, thereby adding to the difficulties. It is absolutely right for us to seek to increase the number of young people staying in education, which is insufficient, and that they reach a full level 2 qualification, equivalent to five GCSEs, by the age of 19. We are putting in place a number of measures, including extra funding, to ensure that we achieve that outcome.
As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, we introduced in the Budget this year a new entitlement to free education and training up to a full level 3 qualification for 19 to 25-year-olds, as part of the FE White Paper. We also introduced an adult learning grant to support the other costs that a young person might encounter in seeking to take such training. I am glad that we have his support on those measures.

John Hayes: What estimate have the Government made of the effect of those measures on the resources, skills and plant of FE? If we are to make extra demands of colleges—I do not say that we should not—we must make absolutely clear the ramifications for the other work that they do. Have the Government measured those and what notional costs have they estimated?

Phil Hope: Yes, we have, and the estimated cost is £25 million. I am delighted that, through our representations to the Treasury on this year’s Budget, we managed to secure the full sum for the core budget to deliver that entitlement. Indeed, a major new capital investment is being made in the FE sector. Any Members going down to their constituencies nowadays will, I am sure, see an FE college there or nearby where some rebuilding, repair or renewal is going on to provide options. That is all part of our massive capital investment, including the building schools for the future initiative, but I will not stray down that path, Mr. Cook, or away from the point on clause stand part.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned adult learners, so I will mention to him again the train to gain proposals targeted on learners in the work force. They mean free training for adults at work up to a full level 2 qualification and include free basic skills training in the workplace for literacy, numeracy and language qualifications. So, employers can look to their employees getting a first full level 2 qualification, which would make a huge difference to those employers in competitiveness, productivity and profitability, and to the individual learner, who would become more employable, get higher wages and, indeed, go on to learning as well. In two regions of the country, we are rolling out level 3 pilots as the next stage up—the vocational equivalent of 3 GCSEs.
With particular regard to Londoners, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) is right to raise the question of their skills needs and the challenge of the London Olympics. We are investing significant amounts to ensure that we can train not just the London work force, although they will be major beneficiaries, but those outside London, where the Olympics will drive up investment in skills and training so that we can deliver not just in construction, hospitality and tourism, but in all the other skills needed.

Meg Hillier: I am heartened by my hon. Friend’s passion for skilling up the Olympics. Now that London has the 2011 skills Olympics, does he agree that there is no excuse not to have Hackney and other London boroughs lifted out of high unemployment and aligned with the more natural employment levels in the rest of the country?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: by establishing new structures across and within London, the Olympic boroughs can work together with the Learning and Skills Council, the Department for Work and Pensions and others to ensure that all agencies co-operate to deliver for people out of work—and, indeed, people in work. We want to make the opportunities of new jobs and employment real so that they come through for Londoners.
Lastly, on adult learning, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings raised the question of learning for leisure or personal development. He will be glad to know that we have ring-fenced some £210 million for personal community development learning, which the LSC spends across the country on such courses. We wish to see learning promoted for its own sake, or for the love of learning, and that is not a ceiling figure, but a floor.
I want the LSC to work with local authorities, health authorities and others, each bringing their local budgets to the table and saying, “What can we do to assess the need in our communities? Who is and is not taking part in these courses? Which areas are covered and which are not, or is there duplication?” This is patchy and difficult, but that is an area where I want to see a lot more happening, and—importantly, returning to clause stand part—the new inspectorate will play a key role in ensuring that we raise standards of delivery and keep raising them.
I have a few more points to make. It is true to say that a wide range of views were expressed in the consultation. A particular view was mentioned, but many respondents were prepared to support the proposed move to a single inspectorate if safeguards could be put in place to ensure that the best of the adult learning inspectorate’s work—in particular, the strong links with employers—was retained.
Earlier, the hon. Gentleman prayed in aid Sir Andrew Foster’s report, which particularly suggested that the adult learning inspectorate should be part of an integrated, single inspectorate, and that that corporate knowledge and experience should be celebrated and embedded in the new organisation. That is why we are ensuring that there is a duty on the board of the new Ofsted to have regard to the views of users such as employers—a vital part of ensuring that the inspectorate does the job required.
The new inspectorate will need to make full use of the expertise of the ALI inspectors, who will form the bulk of the relevant post-16 inspection work force at Ofsted as they do at ALI. Different sectors will continue to have different inspection frameworks based on their specific needs.
I hope that I have dealt with the generality of the hon. Gentleman’s concern to ensure that adult learning is, as ever, robustly supported and funded by the Government, as well as whether the inspection arrangements within these new arrangements will deliver the high quality that he and I both want.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 121

Functions to which this Chapter applies and related activities

Phil Hope: I beg to move amendment No. 564, in clause 121, page 86, line 16, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—
‘(e) (whether or not within paragraph (d)) functions conferred on or exercisable by the authority under the Children Act 1989 (c. 41), the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 (c. 18) or the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38) and functions continuing to be exercisable by the authority under the Adoption Act 1976 (c. 36), and
(f) such other functions of the authority as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 565 to 569.

Phil Hope: These are rather complex amendments, but the intention is relatively straightforward. Clause 121 sets out the local authority functions that fall within the remit of the chief inspector. Amendment No. 564 adds to the chief inspector’s remit local authority social services functions that relate to adults only. The amendments then make consequential drafting changes. These functions particularly include services to adults affected by adoption or special guardianship, whether as natural or adoptive parents, prospective adoptive parents or prospective or actual special guardians. An example is adoption support services for adults and special guardianship support services.
Amendment No. 566 has the effect that the chief inspector will inspect any related activity where the local authority has used the economic or social well-being powers in section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000. Amendment No. 567 makes a consequential drafting change to the definition of related activities in clause 128. The definition applies to the whole of chapter 4, including the annual review under clause 124.
Amendments Nos. 568 and 569 make consequential amendments to section 148 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 to exclude functions that are within the remit of the chief inspector from being within the remit of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. The affect of the amendments is that the chief inspector will, for example, be able to look at a local authority’s adoption services in the round, thus avoiding an artificial division of responsibilities between the chief inspector and CSCI.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 565, in clause 121, page 86, line 18, leave out
‘within subsection (1)(a) or (b), means'
and insert
‘to which this Chapter applies, means (subject to subsections (3) and (3A))'.
No. 566, in clause 121, page 86, line 24, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) In relation to a function within subsection (1)(c), (d) or (e), anything done as mentioned in subsection (2) is a “related activity” only if it is done in relation to or for the benefit of—
(a) persons aged under 18,
(b) persons aged 18 or over in relation to whom the authority has functions under any of sections 23C to 24D of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41), or
(c) persons not within paragraph (a) or (b) in connection with adoption or special guardianship.
In paragraph (c) “special guardianship” means special guardianship under sections 14A to 14G of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41).
(3A) In relation to a function prescribed by regulations under subsection (1)(f), anything done as mentioned in subsection (2) is a “related activity” only if it is prescribed as such by the regulations.'.—[Phil Hope.]

Clause 121, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 122 to 124 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 125

Power of entry

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 533, in clause 125, page 88, line 6, leave out ‘reasonable'. Clause 125 relates to the powers of the inspector to enter premises, and our amendment would leave out the word “reasonable”. That reflects the fact that we feel in the case of local authority inspections that there is no need for the inspector to enter premises at a “reasonable time”. As they are a branch of government we do not need to fear interfering with the private rights of such bodies, although we might wish to require a “reasonable time” in other cases. If the inspector wishes to ensure that the papers of a public body are in order, he should be permitted to arrive at any time of the day or night. This clause already explicitly prevents domestic premises from being searched. We also do not believe that the chief inspector would wish to inspect a local authority at an unreasonable time, unless he had a serious reason. We see no reason why the discretion of the chief inspector should be fettered in this case by the insertion of the word “reasonable”.

Phil Hope: I do not think that any of us seriously believes that the chief inspector would act in anything but a reasonable way in exercising these powers. It could be argued that whether or not the Bill contains the word “reasonable”, the chief inspector will in any case have to act reasonably, in accordance with the general principles of administrative law. However, including this in the legislation sends an important signal as much to those inspected as to the chief inspector. In that respect, the Bill follows the approach taken in the current statutory provisions for the inspection of local authorities by Ofsted and the Commission for Social Care Inspection, which both require the powers to be exercised at reasonable times.
I understand the concerns the hon. Gentleman has raised, and I am happy to go away and think about them. However, I do not think that the change he seeks would help the chief inspector or those he inspects to act as we would want them to. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb: I am reassured by the fact that the Under-Secretary said he will go away and think about the issue. It is important for an inspector who wishes to do so to be able to get to papers before an employee of an authority has a chance to remove or destroy them. We accept that those will be exceptional circumstances. Given the Under-Secretary’s assurance that he will take another quick look at this, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 126 and 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 128

Interpretation etc.

Amendment made: No. 567, in clause 128, page 90, line 3, leave out ‘and (3)' and insert ‘to (3A)'.—[Phil Hope.]

Clause 128, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 129 to 135 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 13 agreed to.

Clause 136 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 137

Publication of inspection reports

Phil Hope: I beg to move amendment No. 463, in clause 137, page 93, line 25, leave out from ‘under' to ‘or' and insert ‘any enactment,'.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 464, 465, 485 and 500.

Phil Hope: The chief inspector already has qualified privilege from the law of defamation in making some reports. A number of other inspectorates also enjoy that same protection. Subsections (1) and (2) extend that protection to all reports that the chief inspector makes. Through the amendments, the Government wish to provide that the protection applies to any report made by the chief inspector, under any enactment, whether it is made under existing legislation, under provisions in this Bill or through any future inspection powers placed upon him or her.
Amendments Nos. 463 to 465 seek to achieve that by replacing the “fill in the gaps” approach of the clause as drafted. Amendments Nos. 485 and 500 make consequential amendments to remove specific provision to that end in the Education Act 2005 in relation to school inspections, which will no longer be needed. Those two amendments also repeal the provision that enables Her Majesty’s chief inspector of schools to publish his reports by electronic means, which is unnecessary to provide for expressly. He has power to publish in
“such manner he considers appropriate”,
which should cover publishing on a website.
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the function of inspection is, above all, to report with complete independence—to tell it as the chief inspector sees it. It would not be right for the chief inspector to be afraid of making any report and pull his punches, fearing a future defamation claim. That is why we want to make it clear that the protection applies to all reports made, and commend the amendments to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 464, in clause 137, page 93, line 26, leave out from ‘made' to end and insert
‘in pursuance of his functions under any enactment,'.
No. 465, in clause 137, page 93, line 28, leave out subsection (2).—[Phil Hope.]

Clause 137, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 138 and 139 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 140

Payment of annual fee to the Chief Inspector by local authorities

Phil Hope: I beg to move amendment No. 466, in clause 140, page 94, line 34, at end insert—
‘(2A) The Chief Inspector may make a scheme under subsection (2B) that is to have effect at a time when no regulations are in force under subsection (1).
(2B) A scheme under this subsection (“a scheme”) may provide for a local authority in England to be required to pay to the Chief Inspector an annual fee in respect of the discharge by the authority of any of their relevant functions specified in the scheme.
(2C) The amount of the fee payable by virtue of a scheme is to be such as may be specified in, or calculated or determined under, the scheme.
(2D) A scheme may include provision—
(a) for different fees to be paid in different cases or classes of case;
(b) for the amount of a fee to be determined by the Chief Inspector in accordance with specified factors;
(c) for the time by which a fee must be paid;
(d) for varying or revoking a previous scheme.
(2E) Before making a scheme the Chief Inspector must consult such persons as he considers appropriate.
(2F) The Chief Inspector must arrange for a scheme to be published in such manner as he considers appropriate.
(2G) A local authority in England must provide the Chief Inspector with such information as he requires for the purpose of determining the amount of a fee payable by the authority by virtue of a scheme.'.
Clause 140 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations requiring a local authority in England to pay a fee to the chief inspector in respect of its adoption and fostering services. The clause re-enacts in the Bill a provision in section 51 of the Care Standards Act 2000. It aims to place local authority fostering and adoption services on the same footing as independent providers of those services. Independent providers are registered and regulated by the Commission for Social Care Inspection and will in future be registered and regulated by the chief inspector. For that purpose they pay an annual fee to CSCI, and in future they will pay it to the inspector.
The amendment would enable the chief inspector to exercise the power to set fees instead of the Secretary of State. The clause will allow the chief inspector to create a scheme setting the fee level after consultation and where no regulations made by the Secretary of State are in force. It will place the fee-setting regime for the local authority and independent providers on the same footing.
The Bill already provides for the chief inspector to exercise the power to set fees for independent providers of adoption and fostering services. It mirrors the provision in relation to CSCI in section 113A of the Care Standards Act 2000, although that section is not in force in relation to CSCI, which will transfer to the chief inspector with the rest of those regulatory powers in relation to social care settings for children by virtue of clause 108.

Nick Gibb: As the Under-Secretary explained, amendment No. 466 would give the chief inspector the power to set his own fees; under the Bill, the Secretary of State has to set the charging regime by regulation. I feel slightly uncomfortable about the whole approach behind the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said in an earlier debate, it gives no incentive to keep costs down.
All kinds of expensive costs—hotel visits and so on—could be run up. I thought that the practice was that the Department monitored the level of fees to ensure that there was no conflict of interest, with the bodies levying the fees benefiting from them in the spending that they incur in fulfilling their statutory duties. Will the Under-Secretary explain why the chief inspector, and no longer the Secretary of State, will oversee those fees?

Phil Hope: We wish to allow the flexibility that I described. The chief inspector will not be able to make a scheme without consultation. I might also add that the role of the new board is to ensure that the chief inspector conducts his business with due efficiency; there is a mechanism to hold the chief inspector accountable for the performance of his duties. Those twin safeguards—the necessity of consultation and the chief inspector’s accountability for the efficient conduct of his office—provide the necessary safeguards that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 140, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 141 and 142 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14

Minor and consequential amendments relating to part 8

Amendments made: No. 470, in schedule 14, page 206, line 22, leave out ‘(inspection)' and insert
‘of the Employment and Training Act 1973 (inspection)—
(a) '.
No. 471, in schedule 14, page 206, line 24, at end insert—
‘(b) omit paragraphs (a) and (b), and
(c) in paragraph (c) for “those services” substitute “services in England in pursuance of section 8 or 9”.'.
No. 472, in schedule 14, page 207, line 22, at end insert—
‘13A In section 79N (general functions of Chief Inspector) omit subsections (1) to (3) and (6).
13B In section 79R (reports of inspections) omit subsection (4).'.
No. 473, in schedule 14, page 207, line 41, at end insert—
‘14A In Schedule 2 (local authority support for children and families) in paragraph 20(1)(a) for “and the Commission for Social Care Inspection” substitute “and (in the case of a local authority in England) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills”.'.
No. 474, in schedule 14, page 208, line 12, at end insert—
‘(2A) For subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) If requested to do so by the Secretary of State, the Chief Inspector must inspect and report on such one or more relevant training providers in England as may be specified in the Secretary of State's request.”
(2B) In subsection (3) omit paragraph (a).
(2C) In subsection (4) omit the words from “and subsections (2) to (4)” onwards.'.
No. 475, in schedule 14, page 209, line 33, at end insert—
‘27A In Schedule 1 (the Audit Commission) omit paragraph 8(2)(e).'.
No. 476, in schedule 14, page 209, line 41, leave out from beginning to ‘for' and insert—
‘(1) Schedule 26 (inspection of nursery education) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 2(1)(a)'.
No. 477, in schedule 14, page 209, line 43, at end insert—
‘(3) In paragraph 13A omit sub-paragraph (4).'.
No. 478, in schedule 14, page 209, line 43, at end insert—

‘Protection of Children Act 1999 (c. 14)

31A In section 2A(2) of the Protection of Children Act 1999 (persons who may refer individuals for inclusion in list of those unsuitable to work with children) for paragraph (c) substitute—
“(c) Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills.”'.
No. 479, in schedule 14, page 211, line 24, at end insert—
‘46A In section 55(3)(e) (persons who may be treated as social care workers)—
(a) after “the CSCI” insert “, the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills”,
(b) for “or section 88” substitute “, section 88”, and
(c) after “Act 2003” insert “or section 125 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006”.'.
No. 480, in schedule 14, page 212, line 4, leave out ‘Part 3' and insert ‘sections 52 to 72'.
No. 481, in schedule 14, page 212, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert—
‘52A In section 94(2) (stamp duty) for “section 90 or 92” substitute “section 92”.
52B In section 95(1)(b) (contracts of employment) for “section 90 or 92” substitute “section 92”.
52C In section 113A(1)(a) (restructuring of sixth-form education) for “section 65” substitute “section 114 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006”.
52D In section 118(1) (inspection)—
(a) for “Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England” substitute “Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills”,
(b) omit paragraphs (a) and (b), and
(c) in paragraph (c) for “those services” substitute “services in pursuance of section 114(1)”.
52E In section 150(4)(a) (Wales) omit “90,”.
52F Omit section 151(2) (transitional provisions).
52G Omit Schedule 6 (the Adult Learning Inspectorate).
52H (1) Schedule 7 (sixth forms requiring significant improvement) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 3(1) for “section 65 or 83” substitute “section 114 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 or section 83 of this Act”.
(3) In paragraph 5(1) for “section 65 or 83” substitute “, section 114 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 or section 83”.
(4) In paragraph 10(1) for “section 65 or 83” substitute “section 114 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 or section 83 of this Act”.
(5) In paragraph 12(1) for “section 65 or 83” substitute “, section 114 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 or section 83”.
52I Omit Part 3 of Schedule 10 (transitional provisions).'.
No. 482, in schedule 14, page 213, line 3, leave out ‘In section 162A(5)' and insert—
‘(1) Section 162A'.
No. 483, in schedule 14, page 213, line 3, after ‘England)' insert ‘is amended as follows.
(2) Omit subsection (4).
(3) In subsection (5)'.
No. 484, in schedule 14, page 213, line 11, at end insert—

‘Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38)

60A In section 99 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (proceedings for offences) for “the Commission for Social Care Inspection” substitute “Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Education, Children's Services and Skills”.'.
No. 568, in schedule 14, page 214, line 22, after ‘include' insert—
‘(a) '.
No. 569, in schedule 14, page 214, line 23, at end insert
‘or
‘(b) functions prescribed by regulations under section 121(1)(f) of that Act.”'.
No. 485, in schedule 14, page 215, line 10, at end insert—
‘78A In section 11 (publication of inspection reports) omit subsections (2) to (4).'.
No. 486, in schedule 14, page 215, line 39, at end insert—
‘86A In section 50 (report of inspections) omit subsection (4).'.
No. 487, in schedule 14, page 216, line 3, leave out ‘under'.
No. 488, in schedule 14, page 216, line 6, at end insert—
‘87A (1) Section 79 (power of constable to assist in exercise of powers of entry) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) for “A person authorised for the purpose of subsection (1) or (2) of section 77” substitute “The Chief Inspector”.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) for “authorised person” substitute “Chief Inspector”, and
(b) for “that person” substitute “the Chief Inspector”.'.—[Phil Hope.]

Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 15

Transitional provisions and savings relating to part 8

Amendments made: No. 489, in schedule 15, page 217, line 1, after ‘done' insert
‘(or having effect as if done)'.
No. 490, in schedule 15, page 218, line 39, leave out paragraph 6 and insert—
‘6 Paragraphs 52 and 52B of Schedule 14 to this Act (and the corresponding entries in Part 5 of Schedule 18 to this Act) do not affect—
(a) any provision of a scheme made under section 90(1) or 92(1) of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c.21) which has effect immediately before the coming into force of those paragraphs;
(b) the operation of section 95 of that Act in relation to rights and liabilities under a contract of employment transferred by virtue of such a scheme.'.—[Phil Hope.]

Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Fifteenth schedule to the Bill.

Nick Gibb: Schedule 15 allows the Secretary of State to make provision for the transfer of staff, property rights and liabilities to the new office and allows for the continuity of exercise of the current functions of the merged inspectorates. The Government have given us a policy document on this which states that the Secretary of State, under paragraph 7, will be able to establish a shadow Ofsted following Royal Assent to ensure that it is functioning on 1 April 2007 when the new organisation comes into being. When does the Minister plan to advertise the positions for the office and what powers and duties does he intend to give the new office prior to the appointed day?

Phil Hope: I am grateful for that question. Rather than answer it now and take up the Committee’s time, I will respond to the hon. Gentleman in writing.

Nick Gibb: I am very happy with that reply.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 144 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 32

Inspection of foundation schools
‘(1) A foundation school established under the provisions of section 7 or section 9 shall be subject to inspection by OFSTED, provided that—
(a) the costs of such inspection shall be borne by the Secretary of State; and
(b) such inspection shall be subject to any regulations that apply to independent schools.
(2) But the local education authority and the Secretary of State shall not give any direction in respect of an inspection undertaken pursuant to subsection (1).'. —[Mr. Leigh.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Edward Leigh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
If foundation schools are to mean anything, they must be more independent than community schools. I therefore believe that it would be useful to their ethos if they were subject to the same regulations as apply to independent schools. They should not be subject to any direction from the Secretary of State as to the nature, scope or frequency of such inspections. Those inspections can be costly. For a smaller school it might be £6,000, and for a larger school it might be £20,000 or more.

Phil Hope: The new clause would introduce different inspection regimes and standards for different categories of school within the local authority maintained sector. That would be inappropriate and potentially damaging to standards and to public confidence in our school system. We have always been clear that trust schools, in common with all publicly funded schools, including academies and local authority maintained schools, should be subject to the same Ofsted inspection regime and held accountable in that way for delivering high-quality education to their pupils.
It cannot benefit anybody if different regimes and different requirements apply within the maintained sector. We intend, of course, that the reforms in this Bill, including the possibility for schools to acquire trust status, will continue to drive up standards. We are aiming for greater choice and diversity within the system with greater freedom for schools to work with external partners and so on, but a strong and unified inspection regime is crucial for this. In view of our concerns about the impact of the new clause, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.

Edward Leigh: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 42

Frequency of inspections (no. 2)
‘(1) Section 5 of EA 2005 (duty to inspect certain schools at prescribed intervals) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) omit “at such intervals as may be prescribed,”.
(3) After subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) The normal frequency of inspections is to be every eight years, unless academic, discipline or other factors seem to the Chief Inspector to require more frequent inspections of a particular school.”.'.—[Mr. Leigh.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Edward Leigh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 42 would result in inspections being at eight-year intervals, unless there were special reasons for them to be otherwise. I believe that Ofsted should work more closely with schools on the necessity and timing of inspections. I do not believe that schools that are doing well need to be inspected more than once every eight years. I may be wrong, but I think that that used to be the pattern. Once every six is currently the norm, but it wastes a lot of time and money for good schools that are performing well. Could the Minister explain why it is necessary for schools to be inspected more frequently than once every eight years, unless there are special reasons?

Phil Hope: An eight-year cycle for school inspections would go in the opposite direction to the one that we wish to take. We are moving from a six-year cycle to a three-year cycle, with more frequent inspections for schools that cause concern. However, the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important point—how to handle the burden of inspections.
The change, which follows extensive consultation by Ofsted, is part of a wider package of measures, including shorter inspection visits conducted with minimal notice. The aim is to reduce the burden of inspection yet increase its impact with a view to improvement.
The three-year cycle, which has been in place since last September, ensures that inspectors have regular contact with schools. That allows problems to be spotted earlier and rectified sooner, with recommendations and their implementation being tested and good practice being shared; and it gives parents, prospective parents and the community more up-to-date information about a school’s performance.
To inspect every eight years would greatly increase the risk of schools deteriorating or merely coasting without showing any evidence of continuous improvement. It could often result in a school never being inspected during a child’s time there, and the parents would never receive an independent report on the school’s performance. That would be unacceptable. 
Underlying concern about the burden of inspection can be resolved through other means, as I have illustrated, rather than proceeding as suggested in the new clause.

Edward Leigh: I hear what the Minister says. The truth is that inspections used to be huge events in the lives of schools. An inspection by Her Majesty’s inspector was almost like the Queen turning up. It was a massive event. The trouble is that inspections have become more frequent, although I agree that they are less demanding, and a sense of complacency can creep into the system. I agree that because inspections are much more frequent they are less demanding; and there is more self-assessment, although there have been some worrying instances of self-assessment not being effective. I hear what the Minister says. We have had a short debate and we have aired the issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 50

Adult learning director
‘(1) One of the persons appointed to the staff of the Office under paragraph 6 of Schedule 11 is to be appointed as Adult Learning Director.
(2) The Adult Learning Director is to have such functions in relation to the performance by the Chief Inspector of functions relating to—
(a) inspection of employer- and work-based learning, and
(b) contacts with private businesses, sector skills councils and other bodies involved in employer- and work-based learning to ensure best practice in inspection,
as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.
(3) Any report made under section 107 shall contain a report by the Adult Learning Director on the performance of his duties under this section, which shall include a report on the extent to which strong links with, and understanding of the needs of, employers have been developed.'. —[Mr. Hayes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

John Hayes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We had a longish debate earlier about the changes in inspection that will result in adult learning being dealt with by Ofsted. The Minister said that that was in line with the Foster recommendations, and that the simplicity and clarity it would bring should lead to improvements.
The new clause would establish an adult learning director within Ofsted. The Minister said that much of the expertise and skills of the adult learning inspectorate would be incorporated into Ofsted in the form of the staff who previously worked for the ALI. The icing on the cake of appointing an adult learning director, in my judgment, would be that it gave leadership and focus, and once again it would send the important message to those who have doubts about the change that the Government take their concerns seriously.
I was disappointed earlier, but I hope that on this occasion the Minister will hear my argument and respond by accepting this measured and helpful new clause.

Phil Hope: I am afraid that I will have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman again. I spoke at length in response to new clause 57 about why we do not want to create a federation of inspectorates within the new Ofsted, so I shall not repeat those arguments. New clause 50 would create a separate adult learning directorate within new Ofsted, and the same arguments apply.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s wish to put on record the requirement to safeguard the needs of adult learners and employers within the new system. That is the reason for the duty on the new non-executive board to have regard to the views of users, one of whom is the employer. During the consultation, we decided to expand Ofsted’s remit to include inspection for all learners, but it is important that the relationships that the adult learning inspectorate had already created, its credibility with employers and its best practices should not be lost. The hon. Gentleman is right—I described earlier how that would be safeguarded. We must get the transfer of the inspection remit right, and I believe that we have done that on this occasion.
I have one other thought about the proposal. Would not having a head of schools and a head of adult learning place a dividing line between the academic and the vocational? The hon. Gentleman and I have debated in the past the importance of not creating such divides. We want pathways between the vocational and the academic, so his idea does not stand up to scrutiny. There are significant benefits to a single inspectorate that is able to understand and recognise that employers and businesses need high-quality academic and vocational learning. Consequently, the new Ofsted inspectorate will be able to speak for both.
We do not believe that we need to include a report by the adult learning director as a statutory responsibility in the Bill. Clause 107 does not list specific items, and we have had this sort of debate before. The hon. Member for Brent, East made that point. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the chief inspector’s annual report will cover the full breadth of his remit. We have debated that.
Therefore, on the basis of the structural arguments that I have given, on the basis of an integrated inspection system that covers academic and vocational education for the benefit of employers and businesses, and on the basis of the board’s responsibility to take a user approach with employers, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.

John Hayes: The Under-Secretary made a convincing case on the structure and on lines of accountability, but I am not sure that his case on the perceptions of employers and others is as convincing. I cited the Institute of Directors earlier, but perhaps it is worth mentioning it again. The IOD argued that the change in the adult learning inspection was unconvincing. It stated:
“The operational benefits were unconvincing and the financial savings underwhelming.”
On perception, it stated that the new merged service will probably be seen as an inspectorate for education, not work-based or adult learning.
The perceptions of employers are critical for maintaining and growing employer engagement. The new clause, which would send out a powerful signal as well as add a level of co-ordination above and beyond what the Under-Secretary described, is of some importance, not because I think that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the issue or because I do not think that some of what he said is persuasive, but because I want to send out a loud and clear signal. Therefore, I am inclined to press the matter to a vote. We should not let Ministers off the hook, even when we come to the tail end of a Committee. Therefore, I invite Members from both sides of the Committee to join me in supporting the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 16.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 145

Power of Chief Inspector to investigate complaints by parents about schools

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 534, in clause 145, page 96, line 27, at end insert—
‘(1A) Where the Chief Inspector receives 25 or more qualifying complaints in relation to a relevant school, he shall carry out an inspection under section 8.'.
Clause 145 gives Ofsted a new power to investigate parental complaints when the parents have exhausted the local complaints procedure. The action that Ofsted can take will be dependent on the circumstances; it may involve a meeting with parents, bringing forward the inspection of a school or other body, or using the information received to inform the next routine inspection of the school.
At present, Ofsted has no formal role in investigating parental complaints and although a small number do complain, Ofsted has no power to intervene other than its power to order an inspection. The objective of clause 145 is therefore to establish Ofsted as an accessible route for parents to take when local complaints procedures have been dealt with. I am sure the Minister will agree with that summary of the clause.
The amendment would ensure that the chief inspector used his power to inspect under the clause when large numbers of parents complained about a school. When 25 qualifying complaints are received in respect of a relevant school——

Sarah Teather: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would be better if a very serious complaint was always investigated at the discretion of the chief inspector, rather than requiring 25 such complaints? Is it not more important to check the content and quality of the complaint rather than the number of them?

Nick Gibb: That is a very good point, but it is probably already covered in the Bill. The inspector has discretion to call an earlier inspection under clause 145 and I am sure that he would do so if the complaint were very serious.
I am trying to establish whether 25 parents making separate complaints or getting together and sending in 25 co-ordinated complaints would indicate a general level of concern in the community that would need a response, not by a meeting of parents, which is an option in the clause, but by an earlier inspection of the school. That is the purpose of the amendment and I should be interested to know the Minister’s view. If he feels that 25 is the wrong number, perhaps we can agree on a compromise of a different number to trigger an automatic inspection.

Jim Knight: The hon. Gentleman gave an accurate description of this important clause. It makes it explicit that Ofsted can consider complaints from parents about the provision in their children’s school and that in some circumstances such complaints may result in an unscheduled inspection. The provision will incentivise the swift resolution of parental concerns at a local level; it recognises that it is the nature of the complaint that is critical, as the hon. Member for Brent, East said, not necessarily the number of parents who complain.
The amendment would replace that approach with a simple trigger system in which Ofsted’s discretion is effectively removed and the chief inspector is required to inspect the school in question on receipt of 25 complaints, using his discretionary power. The trigger approach would take little account of the seriousness of the complaint, or whether inspection is the most appropriate course of action given the circumstances. The amendment would have the effect of leaving Ofsted and schools vulnerable to malicious, vexatious, unmeritorious or serial complaints from a relatively small group of people, possibly related to a single class in the school.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether a different number would be better. It is better to leave it to the discretion of the Ofsted inspector. The amendment takes no account of when a school was last inspected, and it could result in multiple inspections of an individual school, as there is nothing to stop the same group of parents resubmitting a complaint. Further, it does not specify a period within which the complaints should be received. Would it be a term, a year, or even longer?

Annette Brooke: The heading of the clause is “Parental complaints”. I have come across a situation in which complaints from teachers resulted in an inspection. Is there any provision in the Bill for that?

Jim Knight: My reading of and briefing on the clause concludes that it is about empowering parents. As I quickly glance at it again, I see that it contains an entitlement to investigate complaints about schools, so I am quickly trying to think through whether teachers could apply. There is nothing specific in the Bill about teachers, but there could be provision for them. If I need to be more specific, I shall drop the hon. Lady and the rest of the Committee a line. I hope that on that basis the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Gibb: The amendment would not end the discretion of the inspector; it would simply add a new subsection (1A) to clause 145. The amendment would not delete anything, and the discretion of the inspector would remain, regardless of whether the amendment were agreed to.
The amendment is intended to increase the role and rights of parents. The Minister talked about serial complaints, and referred to 25 being a small number of disgruntled parents, but in my experience as a constituency MP, one hears concerns expressed by that number of parents. They are very real concerns and they probably reflect a wider concern about the school. I am disappointed with the Minister’s response, but one cannot win all the amendments that one tables. The issues have been aired, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 145 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 16

Powers to facilitate innovation

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment No. 275, in schedule 16, page 221, line 10, after ‘subsections' insert ‘(4) and'

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 85, in schedule 16, page 221, line 10, at end insert—
‘(4) After subsection (9) insert—
“(10) Where changes to a school granted under this chapter make it ineligible for redesignation under the specialist schools programme, the Secretary of State may relax any requirements of that programme.”'.
No. 276, in schedule 16, page 221, line 10, at end insert—
‘(4) After subsection (9) insert—
“(10) Where the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales refuses to make an order under this section, he or it shall provide the qualifying body with a certificate setting out the reasons for so refusing.”.'.
No. 277, in schedule 16, page 221, line 10, at end insert—
‘2A (1) Section 3 of EA 2002 (Variation or revocation of orders under section 2) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) omit “, on one occasion only,”.'.
No. 202, in schedule 16, page 221, line 28, leave out ‘consult' and insert ‘inform'.
No. 278, in schedule 16, page 221, line 32, at end insert—
‘3A (1) Chapter 1 of EA 2002 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 5 insert—
“5A Duties to provide advisory services and information on powers to innovate
(1) The Secretary of State shall secure that advice and information about making an application for an order under section 2 is available free of charge to any qualifying body.
(2) A local education authority shall ensure that each maintained school which they maintain is aware of its ability to make an application for an order under section 2.
(3) When conducting an inspection the Chief Inspector may, if he considers it appropriate to do so, report on whether a maintained school is making appropriate use of the powers available under this chapter.
(4) School improvement partners appointed under section 5 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 are required to consider whether an application for an order would be appropriate measure for the purposes of raising standards at the school.”.'.
New clause 21—Power For National Assembly For Wales to decide pay and conditions provisions—
‘(1) Section 7 of EA 2002 (Exemptions related to school performance) is amended as follows.
(2) Omit subsection (5).'.

Nick Gibb: Schedule 16 continues and extends the power to innovate which that was introduced in the Education Act 2002 for a limited period of just four years. The sunset clause in the existing legislation will expire on 30 September. By repealing the sunset clause, schools will continue to be able to test innovative proposals for raising standards when the proposals require education legislation to be set aside or modified for the period of the trial.
Innovation is considered to be a vital element of the Bill. The Prime Minister in his introduction to the White Paper said that the success of specialist schools and academies comes from
“the can-do attitude of their principals and staff, and the drive that their business and educational sponsors bring to their development—backed by their willingness to innovate and use their freedoms imaginatively.”
The power to innovate allows the Secretary of State to grant exemptions, relaxations or modifications to existing legislation for a limited period. It permits and enables the trial of new and innovative ways of raising standards. In some cases, the success of those innovations has led to permanent changes in the law; for instance, under section 105 of the Education Act 2005, the power to offer foundation degree courses.
The power to innovate was one of the key powers offered to schools in the 2002 Act. On Second Reading of the Bill, in December 2001, the then Secretary of State said:
“The first part of the Bill will introduce the new legal frameworks to give us the power to back the schools that have good ideas but that do not fit the rules as they stand. We will also establish a schools innovation unit to make sure that those ideas are supported and are shared with other schools. When our best schools come up against legislative barriers that stop them trying the solutions that they think will work, they will be able to ask for the legislation to be varied for a pilot period if that is what is needed. That is a power to free schools to do the things that they want to do to benefit their pupils.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 192.]
That was said by Lady Morris, as she now is, before she changed her views and became a Labour rebel.
Conservative Members welcome any attempt to give schools greater autonomy, and our amendments are designed to extend that even further. Amendment No. 275 and new clause 21 would remove restrictions relating to the Welsh Assembly on powers to innovate and earn autonomy, particularly on the pay and conditions of teachers. While pay and conditions for England and Wales are set nationally, we see no logic in allowing the Secretary of State the power to remove the national pay and conditions agreement but not giving that power to the Welsh Assembly.

Jessica Morden: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] As the sole Welsh Member of the Committee, I was saving myself for the highly important framework powers in clause 154, which we will obviously not reach.
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Assembly has not asked for such powers as are suggested in the amendment and new clause, although it has asked for the framework powers? Differentials in pay and conditions would lead to difficulties in a constituency such as mine, which is on the English border. For instance, teachers in my constituency might be paid less or more than those in Bristol, just across the border, which could lead to a drain between the two countries.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful for that eleventh-minute intervention.The hon. Lady makes a valid point, but the amendment is designed tocreate consistency between the two systems and allow flexibility in payand conditions. That would deal with the very problem that shearticulates—differing costs of living in certain areas. Schoolswould be able to react tothat.
We note thatthere does not seem to be any objection to the Welsh Assembly settingpay and conditions in, for example, the NHS. It should therefore be forthe Welsh Assembly to decide how it implements the measures in theBill, especially as education is now a devolved matter, as the hon.Lady says.
AmendmentNo. 85 would ensure that the power to innovate could be granted tospecialist schools without necessarily putting their specialist statusin jeopardy. That is particularly important if a head teacher proposesto alter the curriculum. If redesignation under the specialist schoolsprogramme is prevented and a school loses the financial benefits of itsstatus, it could act as a disincentive to those considering a widerange of otherwise worthy proposals, such as those at Tavistock collegebrought to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge andWest Devon (Mr.Cox).
Amendment No.276 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to give a certificatesetting out reasons for refusing the power to innovate when it isrequested and denied. There needs to be transparency in the process ofapplying for an order if schools are to take full advantage ofit.
Amendment No. 277would increase the effectiveness of the power to innovate by allowingthe Secretary of State repeatedly to renew freedoms granted. Atpresent, the Secretary of State may renew an order lasting for threeyears on only one occasion. That is no longer necessary, and it meansthat a school may be granted a freedom for only six years, after whichit is required to reapply to continue its innovation further. Incircumstances in which the Secretary of State wishes an innovation tocontinue, it seems burdensome for schools to have to reapply.
Amendment No. 278 would alsohave important beneficial effects. It would require the Secretary ofState to
“secure that advice and informationabout making anapplication”
for thefreedom to innovate. LEAs would have to ensure that each maintainedschool in their area was aware of its ability to apply for the freedomto innovate. Ofsted inspections could suggest whether the school wasmaking appropriate use of powers under the relevant chapter, and schoolimprovement partners, which we debated earlier, would be required toconsider whether the powers were an appropriate method of raisingstandards in a particular school.
Finally, the amendment reflectsthe fact that very few schools—around 200—have takenadvantage of the power to innovate under the 2002 Act. Many of thoseschools were piloting Government initiatives or proposals that went onto form the basis of legislative changes. Freedom to innovate should beconsidered a more fundamental tool that is available to the appropriatebodies for the purpose of raising standards in schools. That is thepurpose of the amendments, and I hope that they receive a favourablehearing from theMinister.

Edward Leigh: To back up what my hon. Friend says, let me addthat we are all in favour of powers to innovate, but the powers arealready in the legislation and I do not believe that school governingbodies should have to consult their LEAs before applying for powers toinnovate. As my hon. Friend said, out of approximately 26,000 schoolsin England and Wales, only 178 have made use of the powers in the threeyears for which they have existed—less than 1 per cent. ofschools. The Minister might want to explain why that figure is so low.My view is that the Bill just adds another layer ofbureaucracy.
AmendmentNo. 202, which I tabled, would require schools merely to inform LEAs.If a school wants the power to innovate, it should have the freedom todoso.

Jim Knight: This is a wide-ranging series of amendments. Ishall start with amendment No. 275 and new clause 21. Hon. Members willbe aware that powers relating to teachers’ pay and conditionsare not transferred to the National Assembly for Wales under theGovernment of Wales Act 1998. Powers set out in sections 119 to 129 ofthe Education Act 2002 apply to the Secretary of State in respect ofboth Wales and England, and the amendments are incompatible with thatprimary legislation and would rewrite the devolution settlement, whichis not something the Committee should do lightly. It is important thatany changes that may be contemplated at local level are consideredagainst the background of pay policy as awhole.
The aim of theGovernment’s proposals is not to prevent the National Assemblyfrom considering power to innovate orders that relate toteachers’ pay and conditions. They do not do that. They allowwider consideration to be achieved in a sensible way, whereas theamendment would dispense with that practical and effective checkingmechanism without adding to the essentials of the Assembly’spowers. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to withdraw theamendment and not to press the newclause.
Amendment No.85 would relax the requirements for redesignation under the specialistschools programme when the existence of a power to innovate order inrespect of schools was, or was perceived to be, a barrier todesignation for that school. If such a circumstance arises, theSecretary of State already has discretion to consider the individualcircumstances of schools that apply for redesignation, because thespecialist schools programme is not statutory. He could thereforeremove the barrier. On that basis, I urge the hon. Gentleman not topress that amendment.
Through amendment No. 276, hon.Members would create a statutory duty on the Secretary of State and theNational Assembly, as appropriate, to provide a certificate to thequalifying body when an application was refused under the power toinnovate provisions—the certificate setting out the reasons forthe refusal. When the Secretary of State decides not to grant an order,correspondence is sent to the qualifying body for the relevantapplication, setting out the decision and stating why it was made. Suchletters also contain advice on any freedoms and flexibilities that mayexist.
Introducing aduty to provide a certificate to the qualifying body would replace thesupportive and informative arrangements that are already in place witha bureaucratic process. For that reason, I urge the hon. Gentleman notto press theamendment.
AmendmentNo. 277 would provide an option to qualifying bodies with a power toinnovate order, whereby the order could be varied or renewed more thanonce. The orders are set for a limited period to allow an innovativeidea to be tested without compromising existing education legislation.If the Department decided subsequently that it did not want to reviewthe legislation in question, allowing individual orders to be extendedbeyond the current six-year limit of one renewal would create pocketsof legislative anomaly that might be difficult to monitor. That couldundermine the legislative framework that has been so carefullyscrutinised by the Committee over the last six weeks. I therefore urgehon. Members not to press theamendment.
AmendmentNo. 202 would change the duty to consult to a duty to inform. The powerto innovate has proved powerful in enabling and encouraging schools andlocal authorities to test innovative practice, but it was a key featureof that provision that before new ideas could be tested all those withan interest should be consulted. The outcome of that consultation is animportant part of any consideration of an application to liftregulatoryrequirements.
Merelyinforming local authorities and qualifying foundations would limit theinformation available on which to base a decision—for example,whether other schools or students in the local authority or foundationmight be affected, especially those with special educational needs,about which there was considerable concern in the Committee and duringthe passage of the 2002 Act. I therefore ask hon. Members not to pressthe amendment.
Amendment No. 278 wouldintroduce statutory duties to provide advisory services and informationon powers to innovate. I welcome the enthusiasm for promoting knowledgeand understanding of the potential of powers to innovate to raisestandards in schools, and I assure the Committee that we already fullyexpect the suggested measure to be carried out, so it would beunnecessary and inappropriate to legislate to ensure that thathappened.
I could sayplenty more, but I hope that what I have said will persuade the hon.Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton not to press theamendment.

Nick Gibb: I have listened carefully to the Minister, who madevalid points about some amendments but underestimated the importance ofthe power to innovate. It is a pity that so few schools have taken upthat power and I believe that amendment No. 278 would providemechanisms for using the power more often in our schools, so I shallpress that proposal to a Division at the appropriatetime.
I beg to askleave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave,withdrawn.

Amendmentproposed: No. 278, in schedule 16, page 221, line 32, at endinsert—
‘3A (1) Chapter 1 ofEA 2002 is amended asfollows.
(2) After section 5insert—
“5ADuties to provide advisory services and information on powers toinnovate
(1) The Secretary ofState shall secure that advice and information about making anapplication for an order under section 2 is available free of charge toany qualifying body.
(2) Alocal education authority shall ensure that each maintained schoolwhich they maintain is aware of its ability to make an application foran order under section 2.
(3)When conducting an inspection the Chief Inspector may, if he considersit appropriate to do so, report on whether a maintained school ismaking appropriate use of the powers available under thischapter.
(4) School improvementpartners appointed under section 5 of the Education and Inspections Act2006 are required to consider whether an application for an order wouldbe appropriate measure for the purposes of raising standards at theschool.”.'.—[Mr.Gibb.]

Questionput, That the amendment bemade:—

TheCommittee divided: Ayes 5, Noes12.

Questionaccordingly negatived.

Schedule 16, agreed to.

Clause147

Powerto repeal references to ‘local education authority’ and‘children’s services authority’etc

Edward Leigh: I beg to move amendment No. 381, in clause 147,page 99, line 11, leave out ‘may' and insert‘shall'.
I wishto speak at great length on this important amendment to clause 147,which will abolish the words “local education authority”.Why is the Secretary of State being given the reserve power to abolishthat familiar phrase, which we all understand? Is it because he wantsthe task of amending every document simply because he anticipates thatat some time in the near future all maintained schools will exercisefull independence of management and that the education remit of localcouncils will not be necessary? Is that hisaim?

Jim Knight: No.

Edward Leigh: Good! Or, rather, what a pity! My amendment wouldmerely substitute the word “shall” for the word“may”. What a pity I shall not have a chance to speak tomy new clause to introduce vouchers. Labour Members would have beenfoaming at the mouth at my longspeech.
I have had achance to put forward my alternative vision of education in thiscountry, which will one day lead to a great new crusade for allschools.

John Hayes: You can see it on the Cornerstonewebsite.

Frank Cook: Order.
“Haec dies quam fecit Dominus, Exultemus et laetemur ea”.

It being after Four o’clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order 83D and the Order of the Committee [28 March], as amended [9 May], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Clause 147 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 148 to 151 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 17 agreed to.

Clauses 152 and 153 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 52

Time limits relating to statements of special educational needs
‘(1) Chapter 1 of Part 4 of EA 1996 (children with special educational needs) is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 26 (making of assessments under section 323), in paragraph 3(3)(a) after “or 329A” insert “, or under regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(b),”.
(3) In Schedule 27 (making and maintenance of statements under section 324)—
(a) in paragraph 5, for sub-paragraph (3) substitute—
“(3) Regulations may provide that, where a local education authority are under a duty (subject to compliance with the preceding requirements of this Schedule) to make a statement, the duty to make the statement, or any step required to be taken for or in connection with the performance of the duty or the maintenance of the statement (including any step in relation to the amendment of the statement) must, subject to prescribed exceptions, be performed within the prescribed period.”, and
(b) in paragraph 11, after sub-paragraph (2A) insert—
“(2B) Where the local education authority determine to cease to maintain a statement following a periodic review or a re-assessment review, regulations may provide that a notice under sub-paragraph (2)(a) must be given within the prescribed period beginning with the date of the review.”
(4) Any regulations which were made under Schedule 26 or 27 to EA 1996 and are in force immediately before the commencement of this section are to have effect as from that time as if made under that Schedule as amended by subsection (2) or (3) (as the case may be).'. —[Jim Knight.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clauses 154 to 160 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 18

Repeals

Amendments made: No. 142, in schedule 18, page 224, line 3, at end insert—
‘Education Act 1996 (c. 56)
In section 529(2), the words “(other than a nursery school or a special school)”.'.
No. 143, in schedule 18, page 224, line 6, at end insert—
‘Section 27.'.
No. 144, in schedule 18, page 224, line 38, at end insert—
‘In section 79(1), the word “or” at the end of paragraph (b).'.
No. 145, in schedule 18, page 225, line 4, column 2, leave out ‘paragraph 45' and insert ‘paragraphs 45 and 146(b)'.
No. 146, in schedule 18, page 225, line 11, at end insert—
‘In Schedule 9, paragraph 82.'.
No. 147, in schedule 18, page 225, line 16, at end insert—
‘In Schedule 21, paragraph 53.'.
No. 148, in schedule 18, page 225, line 23, column 2, after ‘1(2),' insert ‘2,'.
No. 491, in schedule 18, page 226, line 12, at end insert—
‘Employment and Training Act 1973 (c. 50)
Section 10B(1)(a) and (b).'.
No. 492, in schedule 18, page 226, line 23, column 2, at end insert—
‘In section 79N, subsections (1) to (3) and (6).
Section 79R(4).'.
No. 493, in schedule 18, page 226, line 27, at end insert—
‘Education Act 1994 (c. 30)
In section 18B, subsection (3)(a), and in subsection (4) the words from “and subsections (2) to (4)” onwards.'.
No. 494, in schedule 18, page 226, line 37, at end insert—
‘Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 18)
In Schedule 1, paragraph 8(2)(e).'.
No. 495, in schedule 18, page 226, line 40, column 2, at end insert—
‘In Schedule 26, paragraph 13A(4).'.
No. 496, in schedule 18, page 226, line 44, column 2, at end insert—
‘Section 118(1)(a) and (b).
In section 150(4)(a), “90,”.
Section 151(2).'.
No. 497, in schedule 18, page 227, line 2, column 2, at beginning insert—
‘Section 162A(4).'.
No. 498, in schedule 18, page 227, line 12, column 2, leave out ‘(2) and (3)'.
No. 499, in schedule 18, page 227, line 13, column 2, leave out ‘and 26' and insert ‘, 26 and 32'.
No. 500, in schedule 18, page 227, line 20, column 2, at end insert—
‘Section 11(2) to (4).'.
No. 501, in schedule 18, page 227, line 21, column 2, at end insert—
‘In Schedule 7, paragraphs 1 and 4(5).'.
No. 502, in schedule 18, page 227, line 24, column 2, at end insert—
‘Section 50(4).'.
No. 328, Schedule 18, page 228, line 11,
‘In section 89(1A) the words “(within the meaning of section 22 of the Children Act 1989)”.'.
—[Jim Knight.]

Schedule 18, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 161 to 163 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 164

Commencement

Amendments made: No. 358, in clause 164, page 110, line 14, at end insert—
‘section (Power of Assembly to make regulations about admission of looked after children);'.
No. 462, in clause 164, page 110, line 20, at end insert—
‘section (Time limits relating to statements of special educational needs);'.—[Jim Knight.]

Clause 164, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 165 to 167 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Jim Knight: On a point of order. I would like to make one or two comments, largely of thanks, Mr. Cook, first of all to yourself and to Mr. Chope. Although I have only been a member of the Committee for what feels like a fairly long week, I have very much enjoyed serving under the wise stewardship of the two Chairmen of the Committee. I would like to thank you, along with the members of the Committee, who have made me very welcome.
In the past six happy weeks, which I am sure that everyone has enjoyed, 52 hours and 45 minutes of excellent debate has been had, eight hours and 40 minutes more than provided by the programme motion, including the two evening sittings and the extra day’s sitting. Out of 637 amendments tabled for the Bill, only 27—until these few this afternoon—have been knifed. We have had full and wide-ranging debate on the crucial parts of the Bill dealing with the role of local authorities, school organisation trusts and admissions, and more than four hours on clause 61, on the curriculum. Of those clauses knifed, until this afternoon all had previously been scrutinised in the House. We have accepted, either fully or in principle, six Opposition amendments. We have responded to concerns from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. We have made good on our commitments on Second Reading. We have published a draft skeleton code on admissions. We have sent to the Committee more than 40 separate sets of draft guidance, illustrative regulations and explanations.
Parliamentary scrutiny is a wonderful thing. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that the Bill has been well and truly scrutinised. I thank them for their time. I thank my officials, the Bill team, the Hansard reporters—who have had to work hard and long hours—and all the staff of the House who have helped us in our deliberations. Thank you very much. I would also like to thank the Opposition, who have been wonderful.

Nick Gibb: Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook. I, too, add my thanks to you and Mr. Chope for the excellent way in which you have chaired the Committee proceedings. If I may say so, they have been relaxed and firm, and we have been able to have a full debate on all the issues that Committee members have raised. I also thank my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who has brought to the Committee not only his vast intellect, but his vast dining arrangements and a sense of style and humour.
I thank the Opposition Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), for keeping us all here since 28 March, for which we are all grateful, and for his support and encouragement. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) and for Mid-Bedfordshire for their important contributions and support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire has clearly influenced the Minister, for whom it would appear she is very fond, on the important concerns of parents of children with special educational needs, and I hope that this will be the beginning of an important cross-party relationship to address the real concern that children with SEN should have appropriate educational provision.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough for his perspective on issues in the Bill. We did not always agree, but we agreed more often than not. He brought to the Committee his long experience as a politician and a political thinker, as well as his seniority as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It cannot have been easy combining those responsibilities with being a member of the Committee.
I extend my thanks to the Government Whip, who has had his own challenges to deal with because of a virus infection. He has been considerate in his approach to the Opposition. I thank all three Ministers for their courteous and considered responses to our amendments. I also thank Labour and Liberal Members for their contribution to the debate.
Finally, I would like to thank the Clerk for his efficiency in running the Committee. With over 560 amendments and 100 new clauses, I am sure that it was not an easy task, but he has always been open and helpful with advice. I also thank Hansard staff for their diligence.
This has been an enjoyable and unusual Committee dealing with a highly controversial and high-profile Bill, which is supported by both main parties, particularly the Members on the Labour and Conservative Front Benches. I look forward to the final stages of the Bill on 23 and 24 May. We shall carefully scrutinise any further Government amendments at that stage, but we look forward to supporting the Bill and ensuring that, despite internal Labour party problems, this important education Bill finds its way on to the statute book.

Sarah Teather: Further to that point of order, Mr. Cook. I add my thanks and those of my team to you and your co-Chair, Mr. Chope, and I congratulate the new Minister on very ably picking up his brief in a very short time. I assume that he has been ably facilitated by an excellent team of civil servants who have spent many hours briefing him over the weekend. I congratulate him on doing a very good job at short notice.
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member forRedditch (Jacqui Smith), who formidably led forthe Government in the earlier sittings of theCommittee, and to the Under-Secretary for dealing comprehensively with many of our concerns. I pay tribute to the hard work of my own team, who have been a wonderful support to me as a brand new spokesperson; I could not possibly have got through the Bill without them. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, in particular, has brought great expertise and knowledge of children’s issues to bear throughout the proceedings.
I thank the Clerk for his great patience in dealing with us and aiding us in the drafting of amendments. I look forward to Report stage, where we shall scrutinise the amendments introduced by the Government and consider our position carefully. I look forward to the debates on 23 and 24 May.

Frank Cook: I thank hon. Members for their kind comments.

Bill, as amended, to be reported, pursuant to the Order of the House [11 March].

Committee rose at seven minutes past Four o’clock.